The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Assembly: New Member

Mr Speaker: At the sitting of 4 December, I informed Members of the resignation of Mr John Hume as a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly for the Foyle constituency. I have been advised by the Chief Electoral Officer that the new Member for that constituency is to be Mrs Annie Courtney. I invite MrsCourtney to take her seat by signing the Roll of Members.
The following Member signed the Roll: Annie Courtney.

Mr Speaker: I am satisfied that the Member has signed the Roll and confirmed her designation. Mrs Courtney has now taken her seat.

Assembly Business

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Thursday 7 December, my party was informed that today’s business would include a motion from the Executive on the Civic Forum. I understand that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have withdrawn that motion and will not proceed with it at this time. I do not know their reason, but that is not relevant to the point of order.
A hole has been left in our business that could have been filled by one of a long list of motions that are queued up for consideration. May I move the suspension of Standing Orders to allow the Business Committee to consider over lunch whether it might take one of the motions from the list and put it at the end of today’s sitting after all other business on the Order Paper has been dealt with?

Mr Speaker: As the House will know, sometimes the business that the Business Committee has agreed — whether a motion, a Bill or some other matter — is withdrawn. That is the case for private Members, and I regret to say that it has happened on several occasions. It also happens from time to time with Ministers and others.
The Member is correct that that alters the business, but at least Members know what the business is when they receive the Order Paper. I regret that it is not possible to table a motion for a suspension of Standing Orders, on this or any other matter, without its being on the Order Paper.

Mr Peter Robinson: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am grateful, but I wish to make certain that I understood what you said. I see no stipulation in Standing Order 72 that that must be done by way of a written motion.

Mr Speaker: Standing Order 12(7) states that
"Motions relating to the business of the Assembly" —
for example, suspension of Standing Orders —
"shall be taken at the commencement of public business after notice and shall be decided without amendment or debate."
Members have not had written notice, which must be on the Order Paper. That is how we have proceeded heretofore.

Mr Peter Robinson: I accept that. Perhaps I should have expressed myself more clearly. I refer to Standing Order 72, which would enable us to suspend the Standing Order to which you refer, if Members so wished. There was no edge to my comments about the withdrawal of the motion. It is simply a matter of good business practice to let everyone deal with a motion sought by one or more Members in the normal way, rather than give them the afternoon off.

Mr Speaker: I understand that the Member is referring to Standing Order 72. However, a motion for suspension is no different from any other motion, and under Standing Order 12(7) a motion for suspension of Standing Orders — a motion on the business of the House — would have to be on the Order Paper. I make no comment about whether that is a good way to arrange business under Standing Orders; I am simply doing my best to interpret Standing Orders and keep everything in order. I regret that we must now move on.

Electronic Communications Bill: First Stage

Mr Denis Haughey: I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill to make provision to facilitate the use of electronic communications and electronic data storage.
Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Dogs (Amendment) Bill: Further Consideration Stage

Mr Speaker: Under the powers given to me in Standing Order 34(1) I have decided to accept a late amendment to this Bill, tabled by Mr P Robinson, on the ground of exceptional circumstances. I trust that the circumstances will indeed prove to be exceptional.
The Bill was, as I understand it, listed in the forthcoming business sheet for the week beginning 15 January 2001, or later. At an earlier stage a number of points, including the matter at issue, had been raised by Mr Robinson, and a ministerial reply was expected. I understand that when the Bill was rescheduled for today the ministerial reply had not been received. I cannot say whether it was sent. As I pointed out to the Business Committee, the whole purpose of the Further Consideration Stage becomes nugatory if Members are unable to table amendments. They only know from the Order Paper of the final opportunity for amendments after the deadline for the submission of amendments.
I hope that these circumstances will be exceptional, and on that ground I have accepted this amendment. It is the only amendment on the Marshalled List, and I trust that Members have received it.
Clause 1 (Power of court to order destruction of dogs)

Mr Peter Robinson: I beg to move amendment number 1: In page 1, line 7, after "shall" insert
‘, unless, having taken account of all the circumstances, it appears to the court that exceptional mitigating factors exist,’.
I had expected, at the beginning of Further Consideration Stage, some explanation from the Minister as to why the Bill was being debated earlier than had been contemplated. It was on the list of forthcoming business scheduled for the week commencing 15 January 2001.
The handling of the Bill has perhaps been the worst practice of any Department that I have seen for a long time. First, the Bill was introduced without consulting those who have to enforce it, namely local authorities. To this day, they complain about aspects of the Bill and the fact that they have never been asked to comment on it. In her reply, which I eventually received, the Minister offered as an excuse the circumstances relating to the setting up of devolution in Northern Ireland as the reason why proper consultation did not take place. Of course, she and her Department did have time to consult with the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (USPCA), but she did not have time to consult with the statutory body responsible for enforcing dogs legislation — namely, local government in Northern Ireland.
Even after receiving complaints from local government, the Minister did not attempt to consult it on the issue. In effect, if it had not been for the exercise of the Speaker’s discretion, the Department would have succeeded in time-barring the Assembly from putting down any amendments. I shall quote the undertaking given by the Minister at the Consideration Stage, when she could not answer the questions that I had asked:
"As regards the other questions to which the Member seems to think he has received no answers, I am perfectly open in saying that I have not answered all his questions because I had no notice of them. There are issues involved which I, as a Minister, would be foolish to address off the top of my head."
The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development undertook to answer in writing, and she made it clear during the course of the debate that if Members were dissatisfied, they could table amendments at this stage. Therefore it was not unusual for a Member to hold back before tabling an amendment to see whether the Minister could resolve the difficulties raised at the earlier stage.
However, I had to ring the Minister’s Department last Thursday to ask for a copy of a letter that it said had been sent to me. Indeed, it was sent to me, after the request had gone to the Business Committee to consider this matter for this week’s business. Therefore, in effect, when I received the communication it was too late, according to the Standing Orders, to put down any amendment. However, with the exercise of your discretion, Mr Speaker, it has been possible for this amendment to be taken.
It is important that I set my amendment in context. As Members will know, a district council has no discretion at present — if a dog is proven to have attacked a person or to have worried sheep, the council must seek a destruction order in the courts. Equally, the courts have no discretion if they find that a dog did attack a person. "Attack", in this sense, it is worth pointing out, has a wider meaning than would otherwise be assumed. The interpretation given in the Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 includes not only a physical attack on a person but the case in which the dog has behaved
"in such a manner so as to cause a person apprehension of being attacked".
At present, if a person is left with the apprehension that he or she is being attacked, that is sufficient for the courts to make a judgement on the matter, and they have no choice on what that judgement should be. They have to issue a destruction order on the dog.
It is obvious that this piece of legislation is intended to give some limited scope to the courts. In fact, the Bill itself does not offer any discretion to the council. It will still be necessary to take the case to the courts, and the courts will then have only limited discretion as to what they may do. They can, of course, issue a destruction order, or they can consider some other measure that should be taken by way of what might be described as punishment if it has been proved that an attack took place.
The Bill does not provide the courts with the discretion to determine that the dog should be exonerated in all the circumstances. How can the Minister argue that it is right to let the courts have discretion to determine whether the dog should be destroyed or whether some measures falling short of destruction should be applied, while not giving them the discretion to determine whether no action should be taken?
When the case comes to court, if an attack has taken place and the dog has been found guilty, only the extent of the punishment is to be determined. The Department is, in effect, saying to the Assembly that there are no circumstances in which a dog might attack or behave
"in such a manner so as to cause a person apprehension of being attacked"
that can be justified. A dog can never be justified in attacking an individual. That is the Department’s argument. I do not agree. I mentioned one such set of circumstances at the Consideration Stage.
I shall refer to it as the "Rover to the rescue" scenario, in which a dog comes to the rescue of its owner if the owner is under attack. One could perhaps hypothesise about several other possibilities: if a dog were the subject of severe brutality, it might be justified in its attempts to extricate itself from those circumstances. I have not tried to stretch my imagination too far in providing those examples, but I am sure, given the vivid imagination of some Assembly Members, that they could provide other examples. However, that does raise the question of why the Minister is insisting that a dog must be punished in those circumstances.
Does the Minister not trust the courts to exercise their discretion properly? One can only assume that she has confidence in the courts, otherwise she would not be giving them that additional element of discretion. Indeed, given the courts’ past practice, there is no justification for not giving them this further element of discretion. My amendment is framed to ensure that the courts know that only in rare and manifestly justifiable circumstances will they be able to exercise their discretion to the extent of exonerating the dog.
Mr Speaker, you set an excellent example when you exercised your discretion and said that you are prepared to do so only in very limited circumstances. The amendment is framed in such a way that it is made clear to the courts that they can exercise their discretion only in very rare and limited circumstances. It would be unreasonable for the Minister to resist the amendment.
I have attempted to determine why, in her response to me, the Minister was not prepared to accept the substance of the amendment. I suppose that when attempting to guess other people’s motives, one is treading on dangerous territory, but it strikes me that this is, perhaps, departmental arrogance. Is it a question of "Our officials framed this piece of legislation; the experts drafted it. How dare those Assembly Members think that they will be able to find some imperfection in our handiwork." Perhaps there is a direct rule legacy in the Department — "We are the people who will decide these matters, and we do not want any interference in the process from elected representatives."
Even in the correspondence that I received from her, the Minister gives little glimpse as to why she would turn down the amendment. From her correspondence, I can only deduce one explicit reason that she offers and, perhaps, one implicit reason. I want to deal with both of these. In her letter to me, she says:
"I fully understand the kind of situation you describe, i.e. where the dog is defending his owner and bites an attacker or intruder, and in those circumstances I could foresee the courts operating with a fairly light touch."
That is a telling sentence. It is a recognition on the part of the Department and the Minister that they recognise a set of circumstances as being valid. However, in dealing with that, all the Minister has to say is that she recognises that that set of circumstances could come about, and she hopes that the courts will let the dog off lightly "for its gallantry". That is only a "hope", of course, because it is left to the discretion of the courts as to how they interpret the legislation. That seems to be a strange approach by the Minister. I suspect that if a soldier were to come to the rescue of a member of the public he would be mentioned in dispatches.
If another citizen came to the rescue of a member of the public, he or she might be awarded a medal. The press might even bestow some credit on that person. However, if a faithful dog that loves its owner is prepared to put itself in harm’s way in order to protect its owner, the Minister’s answer is, "Well, you do not necessarily have to kill it; you can just punish it slightly." That does not seem to be a very humane approach to the matter, and it is a definition of mercy and compassion that I would not want to share. I can see no logic in the thinking behind that.
The other implicit reason given by the Minister in her correspondence for making no change in the Bill is that, based on past experience, there would be very few such occasions. The Minister said
"There are relatively few destruction orders made each year; in 1999 there were 40 attacks on people and 16 attacks on livestock; and I would envisage only a very few of those raising issues which might lead the Courts to consider that measures other than destruction could be taken to prevent the dog being a danger to the public or to livestock."
I do not know for how many years we might expect this piece of legislation to be in force in its present form. The last similar piece of legislation came forward in 1983. Therefore, for the purpose of my calculation, I am going to take a period of 17 years. On the 1999 figures provided by the Minister, that makes about 1,000 cases that may come before the courts.
I do not know — and neither does the Minister — how many of those cases would be of the kind for which the amendment might be applied. I do not think that it is a sensible approach for the Minister to say that it is not worth making the change that we could make today with so little effort. She would rather punish gallant dogs and be unjust than allow her Bill to be changed in any way.
Mr Speaker, you will know from your experience in another place that amendments generally fall into one of three categories. First, amendments can be tabled with the intention of doing violence to the Bill, of changing its direction, of attempting to undermine the key principles. In those circumstances, I would never be surprised if a Minister were to oppose an amendment. The second category is where somebody takes the opportunity that the Bill raises of riding his hobby horse across the pages of the Bill and putting down an amendment to extend it in some direction. I would seldom be surprised if a Minister might resist his or her Bill being used in that manner of convenience. However, there is a third category where Members try to improve the legislation to enhance the intention of the Bill, and are being helpful to the Minister and the Department.
It is obvious that this amendment does no violence to the principle that the Minister has included in this Bill. It is consistent with the purpose of the Bill, which is to allow the courts to have more discretion. I do not see how the Minister could argue that the amendment takes the Bill off in another direction — it is riding the same path that the Minister is riding. The only issue is whether it is right that in certain circumstances it might be opportune for the court to have the discretion not to destroy or to instruct that measures be applied to punish the dog for any action in which it has been involved.
As my amendment seeks only to improve and enhance the stated intention of the Bill, any attempt by the Minister to defeat the change will leave her defending the incomprehensible and appearing obstinate and arrogant. She will be seen to be defending her Department’s shortcomings with the same vigour as she might defend her honour or virtue.

Mr Speaker: For the sake of completeness, I should say that there is at least one type of amendment in addition to the list that the Member has given. It is not uncommon for probing amendments to be put down. Their purpose is not to wreck or divert the Bill or divide the House, but to ensure that the Minister will put something on the record. That could be by way of an undertaking for a later stage, which is not relevant at this stage of the Bill, or something might be said by the Minister that could, subsequent to the Pepper v Hart judgement, be used by the courts in the interpretation of a piece of legislation, if it were unclear what the legislation intended.
The Member has helpfully referred to the fact that there are different kinds of amendments used by the House, and by Members, in different ways. This amendment has, however, been tabled and proposed.

Ms Brid Rodgers: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I intend to accept the amendment. Does that remove the need for a debate?

Mr Speaker: It is possible for the Minister to respond by way of acceptance, but normally Members could make some other remarks if they wanted to do so. Some of those remarks may be tempered by the Minister’s intervention.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I support the amendment. I know that the Minister has said that she will accept the amendment, but I cannot leave this issue without reiterating the criticism of the handling of the Bill. There has not been the kind of consultation for which one would have hoped for, especially with those who will have to enforce the legislation. As has been said, this is not unique to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. There is still a pervading sense in Departments that the expertise lies with their own legislative draftsmen. How dare anybody from outside criticise that?
We shall also find that problem with other Bills. Ministers ought to give due consideration to the people who have to implement legislation. They know where difficulties arise and where problems have occurred in the past. Therefore, they can see the flaws in the legislation, which in many cases is drawn up from the point of view of academic expertise rather than experience.
I shall reinforce my Colleague’s point. I am glad that the Minister has accepted the amendment, for a couple of reasons. First, one thing that has attracted much bad publicity to councils — and it has been the case in the council on which I serve — is when a destruction order on a dog has been made that, in the circumstances, has been patently unfair. Councils have no powers of discretion. The officer on the ground cannot make a judgement.
He cannot say, "There are mitigating circumstances that persuade me not to pursue this case in the courts." Under the terms of the Bill, the courts will not be able to exercise discretion in the circumstances that were described by my Colleague. Ultimately, the council will be at the front line when it comes to making destruction orders and will therefore attract all the bad publicity. The Bill gives the court some limited discretion, but, without the amendment, it does not give the court the discretion to do nothing.
It was ironic that the Minister had to rely on the argument that a court might "deal lightly" with a dog "in certain circumstances". What does that mean? The options open to a court, if it decides not to require that a dog be put down, are to muzzle it, confine it, exclude it or neuter it — all that from a Minister whose party has complained vigorously about the Government’s attempts to muzzle terrorists.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I am trying to draw a parallel.

Mr Speaker: Order. I can think of another parallel — how the Speaker should deal with Members. The Member should review what he said about the meaning of the phrase "dealing lightly" in tomorrow’s Hansard. He should be cautious about making comparisons with other areas, as the Speaker might be tempted to do so as well. The Member must remain tightly within the confines of the amendment and not wander too far from it.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I hope that you were not considering the fourth option that I mentioned, Mr Speaker. I could have gone on to speak about exclusion orders or incarceration, which the Minister’s party has deemed to be inappropriate for terrorists.
The clause sets out how a court might "deal lightly" with a dog that has been protecting its owner or his owner’s property. The Department should accept the amendment. We must be vigilant about allowing Departments to think that they know better and that they can railroad measures. That would be against the whole ethos of devolution.

Mr Peter Robinson: I am aware of the practice of tabling probing amendments, and deliberately did not mention it lest it give the Minister an easy route out.
The courts often consider the intentions of legislators. There is a sentence in the Minister’s letter that follows on from what my hon Friend said about the four specific measures mentioned in the Bill. In the letter the Minister says
"The kind of restrictions mentioned in clause1 sets the parameters for the restrictions which the court could place on a dog but there is no reason why the courts should not, if it thought circumstances so dictated, define other measures sufficient to prevent the dog being a danger to the public or to livestock."
I simply put the matter on record because the courts may want to know that they have that additional measure of flexibility.

Mr Sammy Wilson: It is important to have that matter on the record because — as Mr Robinson pointed out — the courts will often look at the intention behind legislation when it was being debated.
Finally — and I know that this has been raised before — there is concern as to how this legislation is to be enforced. The restraining, confining or exclusion of dogs will mean additional work for a local authority, although that is not being made clear. If that is to be the case, perhaps the Minister will clarify whether she intends for additional resources to be made available. Will those funds have to be found by local councils?

Ms Brid Rodgers: It seems that the mover of the amendment has pre-empted my thinking and has presumed that I would not accept his amendment. Perhaps he underestimates his own powers of persuasion. He is very good on rhetoric but sometimes not so good on substance. It was interesting; perhaps he is not used to dealing with people with open minds. I am pleased that the Members opposite recognise the value of devolution and hope that they will continue to recognise it.
I did not have any amendments at the Consideration Stage, but Members will be aware that the Bill passed Committee Stage and — as Mr Robinson acknowledged when speaking at Consideration Stage — missed some key points. It is interesting that the Committee, of which he seemed to be somewhat critical, is chaired by his party leader and includes two more of his party members.
The timing of the Bill is not a matter for the Department, as the Member will probably be aware. The issue of consultation has been discussed at length in the House and at Committee Stage, and the reasons have already been given. I do not intend to go over them again. As regards additional resources, application of the legislation would be a matter for the RUC.
I have carefully considered the proposed amendment to clause 1. It seeks to further extend the courts’ discretion on whether to order the destruction of a dog or apply a lesser penalty, such as muzzling or confinement, where the dog has attacked people or livestock. The clause was drafted on the basis that if it were proved to the satisfaction of the court that an attack had taken place, the court would take any mitigating circumstances into account. Nevertheless, the court would still have to apply a penalty provision at whatever level it thought fit, in accordance with the provisions in the Bill.
That said, insofar as the terms of the proposed amendment offer the court the option of not applying a penalty at all, I am happy to accept it on the grounds that it is limited to circumstances in which exceptional mitigating factors exist. As such, it will offer the courts the widest possible discretion in any case of a dog attacking a person or worrying livestock. The Bill will therefore be amended accordingly.

Mr Speaker: The Minister has said that the timing of the Bill is not a matter for the Department. That, of course, is correct. It is, however, a matter for the Executive Committee, under Standing Order 12(4). It was at that Committee’s request that the Bill was introduced at this time.

Mr Peter Robinson: The Minister is right in saying that I am somewhat surprised that she has accepted the amendment. It is not because of her ability to take into account any reasoned argument put forward, nor is it because I consider the Minister to be incapable of comprehending reasoned arguments. When the Minister wrote to me regarding the matters that I raised, which included this one, at Consideration Stage, I expected her to say that she was willing to accept an amendment, or to put down an amendment herself. She did not; therefore I tabled the amendment. I am pleasantly surprised, if not delighted, that the Minister is prepared to accept it.
I do not wish to appear churlish, but the amendment does improve the Bill considerably. Despite the Minister giving me what might be described as dog’s abuse in her remarks, I must say that at no stage did I offer any criticism of the Committee — neither at Further Consideration Stage nor at Consideration Stage in November 2000. My criticism was of the Department, which has a responsibility to consult with those persons responsible for enforcing legislation that passes through the House. A Department cannot assume that a Committee will do the work for it. Instead, Departments should to be managing the wider consultation, especially in the light of the amount of work with which Committees are faced. It is not possible for Committees to bring in various interested parties for every Bill that comes before them.
The Minister may think it a telling point when she says to us that there is a value in devolution. I do not know where the Minister has been, but the Democratic Unionist Party is a devolution party. We believe in devolution. We believe that devolution is in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland for precisely the reasons she is explaining. Certainly, we have major difficulties and objections to the form of devolution being exercised in Northern Ireland, but that does not detract from our adherence to the principles of devolution, which we believe is in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Long title agreed to.
Bill passed Further Consideration Stage and referred to the Speaker under Standing Order 35(3).

Part-Time Workers Regulations

Dr Sean Farren: I beg to move
That the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000 be approved.
I shall refer to these Regulations as the Part-time Regulations. They were brought before the Assembly on 27 June 2000 and came into operation on 1 July 2000. They are subject to confirmation by the Assembly within six months of the date that they came into operation.
The Regulations implemented European Directive 97/81/EC, as extended to the UK by Directive 98/23/EC, in Northern Ireland, and correspond closely to those made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in Britain, which also came into force on 1 July 2000. Their aim is straightforward: they make it unlawful for unscrupulous employers to treat part-time workers less favourably than comparable full-timers.
Part-time workers, therefore, must receive the same hourly rate of pay as full-timers, the same access to occupational pension schemes, the same access to training and the same entitlement to annual, parental and maternity leave on a pro rata basis. In that way we can ensure that part-time workers are not treated less favourably in their contractual terms and conditions than comparable full- timers, unless different treatment is justified on objective grounds.
I commend the Regulations to the Assembly.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I am grateful for the opportunity to make some comments on my own behalf and on behalf of the Committee. I appreciate the Minister’s remarks. It is of note that equivalent Regulations now apply in the other parts of the United Kingdom and that these Regulations have been in operation in Northern Ireland since July. As the Minister said, it is somewhat imperative that we confirm these Regulations today so that in meeting required timescales we comply with European law.
The underlying reason is the possibility of so-called Frankovich cases. The European Court has now made provision for individuals to sue the Government in their jurisdiction if that Government fail to implement current European Directives and Regulations. The Committee regrets that suspension between February and June cut short any contribution from the Committee at drafting stage of the Regulations in Northern Ireland. Notwithstanding that, on 9 November, the Committee took evidence on the Regulations and, on 10 November, we wrote to the Minister, listing some of our main concerns. It was not felt that those concerns merited a special report to the Assembly.
The burden of our concern is with respect to the limitation on the comparators against which part-time workers under this Directive are to be compared. It implies that only some, not all, part-timers will be able to avail of protection under the Regulations. Particularly of note is the fact that in these Regulations, unlike the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976, there is no provision for a so-called hypothetical comparator.
The Committee supports the motion because it approves of the broad principles of equity contained in the Regulations. At the same time, it is concerned about some of the details. In this matter, we are constrained to a great extent to comply with the rest of the European Union. Nevertheless, the Committee stresses the value and appropriateness of an early review on the part of the Minister and the Department of the implementation of the Regulations to ensure that they are achieving their objective, which is the equitable treatment of part-timers relative to full-time workers.
I urge support for the motion.

Mr Mervyn Carrick: I agree with Dr Birnie. I welcome the extension of statutory rights of equal treatment to part-time workers. Although the Committee raised several issues with the Minister, it is aware that the legislation needs to be brought into force. Apart from the absence of the hypothetical comparator referred to by DrBirnie, the Committee was concerned at the absence of a code of practice, which many of the bodies responding to the Department’s consultation process had asked for. Although that is not a flaw in the legislation itself, we believe that a statutory code of practice would give extra weight to the legislation and give clear guidance to part-time workers on their rights.
Many part-time workers are employed by small organisations that do not have the resources to make the advice available. A code of practice conveys good practice guidelines. I note that a similar document supporting legislation on recruitment and selection helped to change the culture in that area, as well as providing useful guidance for employers and employees alike.
The Committee also examined guidance on the Regulations that has been made available in all jobcentres. Although easily readable, the guide, we found, was confusing in some areas, and at times it gave misleading or perhaps unlawful guidance. Our views on that have been submitted to the Minister. In particular, the lack of statutory guidance on what comprises objective grounds for an appeal under the legislation leaves the whole issue to be sorted out at a tribunal. The onus is on the individual to identify his or her rights as a part-timer. We consider that employers should periodically review how individuals are provided with information on their rights as part-time workers.
I note that House of Commons staff are specifically mentioned in the corresponding legislation. Individuals in the Assembly have not been included in the Northern Ireland Regulations that we examined. I am especially concerned that staff working in the Northern Ireland Assembly should be covered by the legislation.
I too wonder how the effect of these Regulations will be evaluated. There should be some form of future inspection to ensure that the Regulations have been implemented properly and are being adhered to by employers. Despite my reservations, I agree with the Chairman about the importance of the Regulations.
I support the motion and commend it to the House.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the extension of the statutory right of equal treatment to part-time workers. The Committee raised several issues with the Minister. One of those issues was a code of practice that would give clear guidelines to part-time workers on their rights. The Committee believes that a statutory code of practice would not only add weight to the legislation but also guarantee protection for the most vulnerable workers, especially those working in smaller firms.
As the moment, part-time workers on fixed-term contracts cannot pursue a claim to win equal rights, even if they can find a full-time worker with a similar contract to act as a comparator. The absence of comparators is a serious weakness in the legislation and means that a large number of workers in low-paid jobs such as cleaning and catering, mainly women, will have limited protection. Similar limitations mean that the rights and terms of employment of term-time workers — a subject much discussed in the Assembly — cannot be properly addressed.
The rights of casual and temporary workers, home workers, agency workers, and other non-timed piece workers cannot be addressed either.
However, the legislation is welcome as a step in the right direction, although it is also a missed opportunity to really put in place legislation that would impact on the huge number of part-time workers in the North — approximately 200,000. The estimate that this legislation will impact on only 7,000 of those part-time workers indicates some of the legislation’s weaknesses. It is obvious that the legislation promised businesses and employers a light touch, and certainly a minimum of red tape. However, I welcome the introduction of the legislation. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Ms Jane Morrice: We also welcome the introduction of legislation that puts part-time workers on the same footing as full-time workers. That is important. However, we have several important concerns on which we would be grateful for further clarification from the Minister.
Obviously, the Regulations are of particular interest to the Women’s Coalition, because 83·1% of part-timers are women. Some 36% of women work part-time, compared to 6% of men.
We are aware that these Regulations are the implementation of the European Commission Directive on part-time workers, brought into Great Britian legislation, and now extended to Northern Ireland. We are concerned that, in the rest of the UK, the Directive has been given the narrowest possible interpretation. However, on listening to the Minister, I have been given some assurance that several areas of concern could be alleviated — for example, the issue of the rates of pay. There is a marked incidence of low pay among part-time workers in Northern Ireland. The figures show that, in 1999, 22% of part-time employees earned less than £4 an hour, and, of those, 80% were women.
The earlier notes to the Regulations gave an example of a justified difference in hourly rates where employees are shown to have a different level of performance, measured by a fair and consistent appraisal system. I am assuming that the Minister, in his opening statement, said that there would be no difference in hourly pay between full-time and part-time workers. We welcome movement on that issue.
Our second point is on training. We are all aware that training has been much less available to part-time workers. In the Minister’s opening statement, we heard that this also is to be clarified and that part-time workers will have access to training. That is vitally important, given that the majority of part-time workers are women. It is vital that they have access to training.
Dr Birnie raised the issue of comparators. Mr Carrick raised the point of the code of practice, which is important. We have a further question about situations when differential treatment is justified on objective grounds. It is important to understand what "objective grounds" means, so that we do not leave too many loopholes that could be used by unscrupulous employers to discriminate against people.
Those are the main points on which we wish to seek assurance. We support the calls from Dr Birnie and Mr Carrick for an early review of the implementation of the Regulations to ensure that they are being properly applied and that there is absolutely no discrimination against part-time workers.

Dr Sean Farren: I thank all the Members who have spoken on this issue. I share their objective of ensuring that part-time workers enjoy the same level of protection as full-time workers — the same guarantees in their terms and conditions of employment and, insofar as it is necessary, the enhancement of those terms and conditions to the highest possible standard.
We should not assume that all, or many, employers of part-time workers are unscrupulous in their approach or that they are intent on denying workers their rights. It has been pointed out that only a small number of part-time workers will be affected by the Regulations to be implemented under the legislation. However, many part-time workers already enjoy the same standards as their full-time counterparts, and that is the case throughout the public sector. If, as Mr Carrick suggested, there are deficiencies in the conditions of employment of part-time staff in this institution, I would be very anxious to hear about them and to be assured that all part-time workers were receiving the level of protection required by the legislation. I would be very concerned if that were not so.
Points were made on the comparators used to determine terms and conditions for workers. The Regulations require a comparator to be in a job broadly similar to that of a full-time worker,
"having regard … to qualifications, skills and experience".
Part-time employees are allowed to compare themselves to their predecessors in their posts, and that should be particularly helpful to women returning to work. I am very aware that a significant majority of part-time workers are women. All the evidence shows that many women receive a lower level of remuneration than their male counterparts. I trust that the Regulations that are to come into force under this legislation will go a long way towards enhancing the situation of women.
On the subject of review, I am anxious to ensure that we monitor the implementation of the Regulations, and I am sure that that will happen. We shall be assisted in that by the statutory agencies involved and by the trade union movement, and I shall welcome all their comments, observations, reports and evaluations. We are at the first stage of this legislative process in Northern Ireland. It was introduced shortly after suspension. Before that, there was very limited opportunity for making detailed comment on such legislation, as Dr Birnie pointed out, but that should not prevent the Committee and others from making additional evaluations, which might be helpful to us as we move forward. I trust that I have covered most of the main issues.
The legislation is a significant advance and I commend it to the Assembly.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000 be approved.

Drink-Drive Offenders

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

Mr Sam Foster: I beg to move
That this Assembly approves the Courses for Drink-Drive Offenders (Experimental Period) (Extension) Order (Northern Ireland) 2000.
The Road Traffic Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 provides for an experiment in the use of courses as a sentencing option for convicted drink-drive offenders. On satisfactory completion of the course, the offender may receive a minimum of three months reduction and a maximum reduction of one quarter of the period of disqualification from driving.
The aim of the scheme is to prevent reoffending. The purpose of the experiment is to test the viability of the courses and to facilitate the evaluation of their effectiveness in preventing reoffending.
An Order to reduce a period of disqualification can be made where the following conditions are met: where an offender of 17years of age or over has been convicted of a relevant drink-driving offence resulting in a driving disqualification of 12months or more, and the court has explained in ordinary language the provisions of the Order to reduce the period of disqualification to the offender, also informing him or her of the amount of the fees for the course and of the requirement that he or she must pay them before the beginning of the course, the court must be satisfied that a place on the course specified in the order will be available for the offender. Then, with the agreement of the offender, the order may be made.
An experiment has been running in the petty sessions district of Belfast and Newtownabbey since 1April1998. That experiment will end on 31December2000 unless the Department makes an Order before that date to extend the period. The Probation Board for Northern Ireland was appointed as the sole course organiser, and the fee payable to the organiser is £100. Courses include information about alcohol and its effect on the body, on driving ability and on behaviour; an analysis of personal drinking patterns and how they relate to the driving offence; the impact that drinking and driving can have on victims and their families; alternatives to drinking and driving; and personal strategies and sources of advice to prevent repeat offending.
Each course is made up of nine weekly two-hour sessions. To complete a course successfully a participant must attend all nine sessions in full. To date, 12 courses have been completed; 113 people attended and, of those, 109 — 96% — completed all nine sessions. The remaining four participants withdrew for personal reasons.
The main criterion for judging how successful the courses have been is whether offenders who have attended a course are less likely to re-offend within threeyears than those who have not. From 1993 to 1999, courses for drink-drivers were run experimentally in 18 designated areas in England and Wales. The scheme will become permanent there with effect from 1January2001. In England and Wales it was found that offenders who had completed a course were almost three times less likely to be reconvicted of a serious drink-driving offence than those who had not.
Initial indications are that courses in Northern Ireland are effective. Participants have shown a marked increase in knowledge about alcohol and its effect on the body, as well as a better attitude to not drinking and driving. However, more time is required for fuller evaluation of the impact of courses on reoffending. The Order before the Assembly will extend the current experimental scheme for a further period of fiveyears, to the end of 2005. The LordChancellor will make a separate Order designating all petty sessions districts in Northern Ireland. That will allow all relevant drink-drive offenders in Northern Ireland the opportunity to attend a course. It will also allow the collection of data on a sufficiently large sample of offenders to permit the carrying out of reconviction rate analyses.
I commend the Order to the Assembly.

Rev William McCrea: Drink-driving is a very serious issue. Nothing that has been discussed today, or the Courses for Drink-Drive Offenders (Experimental Period) (Extension) Order (Northern Ireland) 2000, should be understood as taking the issue of drink-driving with anything less than the seriousness and gravitas it deserves. Many innocent people have lost their lives through drink- driving. The Minister brings the motion to the House to try to help people who have been disqualified from driving to see the seriousness of their conviction and to stop them from reoffending. I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House on behalf of the Committee.
The Statutory Rule was brought before the Assembly’s Environment Committee on 7 December 2000, and it was unanimously recommended that the Order be affirmed by the Assembly. I fully support that recommendation. However, the Committee had several questions, and officials from the Department of the Environment appeared before us. We still have some concerns that I ask the Minister to consider.
If someone is keen to drive again, surely it must look like a very attractive offer to have his or her suspension reduced if he or she satisfactorily completes a course approved by the Department. We are concerned that the actual take-up rate is very low — some 6% of all offenders. The fee to join the course is £100. To many in the House, £100 may not seem a lot of money. However, for some people who would like to take up this course, and would greatly benefit from it, the fee could be regarded as a substantial amount. Is it not possible to provide the course at a lower cost? Has the Department considered some form of support from the car insurance industry? After all, it is in its interest as much as anyone else’s for the courses to be successful.
The Committee was told that the experiment is to be extended throughout Northern Ireland. However, we were also informed that there will only be four centres — in Belfast, Ballymena, Armagh and Londonderry. Surely this will disadvantage people from outside those areas. For example, how can people from Enniskillen, Larne or Newry be expected to travel to a two-hour session at night? Remember that they do not have a driving licence. Those are questions that have exercised the Committee, and I hope that the Minister will take them on board.
I assure Members that the Committee and I support the Order and urge the House to do likewise.

Mr Mitchel McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I would like to reiterate the points made so expertly and comprehensively by our Committee Chairperson to reflect the views of the Committee.
This motion represents an enlightened approach to a significant and growing social problem. I commend the point about the vested interest, almost, of the driver who has been convicted and disqualified, and who wishes to drive again and be reinsured.
In those circumstances, the insurance companies impose a significant increase in the cost of insurance cover. It is important to encourage a greater uptake of this important form of counselling and awareness training. A 6% uptake is really a record of failure, but the concept of the course itself is worthy of strong support. We should try to redress the difficulties faced in obtaining a more appropriate level of uptake. If the Minister could address the insurance brokers directly they may be prepared to make an allowance upon successful completion of the counselling course. I understand that one broker already provides that incentive.
The statistics demonstrate that those who complete the course are three times less likely to reoffend than others with similar convictions who did not opt for the course. All the evidence points to the value and efficacy of that approach, but we must find ways and means of encouraging more and more people to avail themselves of it.
I strongly support the measure. Does the Minister agree that it would benefit us all if we could encourage more convicted drivers to take up the course? One effective means of doing that would be to provide the incentive of an insurance premium deferral or reduction upon successful completion of the course. We would all gain from that.
Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Jim Shannon: I support the Minister’s proposals. As DrMcCrea mentioned, we also want to keep in perspective the reasons why drink-driving remains one of society’s ills. The television advert launched by the Minister only a few weeks ago highlights the gravity of drink-driving and the need to curtail it.
There has been a decline in drink-driving cases, which we welcome, but much more must be done. The graphic nature of the advert hits home to everyone, but those of us who are parents can relate especially to what happens to the wee boy playing football in the security of his back garden.
At the same time, we must look at the proposal to extend the experimental period, because, in its own way, it addresses some of the important issues. The road accident figures for the past year make horrific reading. They are just up on this year, with 577 alcohol-related and drug-related accidents, 34fatalities and 1,072total casualties, ranging from the slightly injured to the seriously injured.
Many of us believe that we should consider zero tolerance of drink-driving. Many people would like to see that. The experimental method in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom has not been very successful. However, it has had a marked level of success. The fact that a solicitor or a barrister, pleading on behalf of an offender, can ask for his client to attend the nine-stage course as a means of rehabilitation through treatment and education is a positive way of addressing the issue. However, I wish to see more of those who have been convicted taking up the course. Perhaps that tells one a lot about the people as well; perhaps they need their jobs more and perhaps they are prepared to redress the wrongs that they have done.
It is fair and just that a successfully rehabilitated offender should be allowed back on the road after a series of courses that will treat and educate him. Many have made mistakes; many are genuinely sorry and wish it had never happened. None the less, it did happen, and they make amends for it.
Can the Minister provide figures broken down into separate categories for driving offences involving drugs and those involving alcohol? Is the Minister considering adding to the existing categories, perhaps creating one specifically for accidents caused by excessive speed? Excessive speed is the biggest killer on the roads and also causes the greatest number of casualties. DrMcCrea mentioned assistance for those travelling to take part in courses. Will such assistance be made available? The four locations are not accessible to everyone in the Province, and the Minister should consider that.
The extension of the experimental scheme for another five years keeps Northern Ireland in line with the position on the United Kingdom mainland. It builds on the limited success of the scheme and gives offenders the chance to address their mistakes and learn from them. I hope that that will allow offenders to contribute to society more fully than previously.

Mr Sam Foster: Article 36(2) of the Road Traffic Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 states that a court can reduce the period of disqualification imposed on a drink-drive offender, provided that the offender satisfactorily completes a rehabilitation course. By providing for the continuation of that power until the end of 2005, the Order will facilitate a comprehensive evaluation of the experimental scheme. Such an evaluation is necessary if we are to assess the scheme’s ability to deter those who participate from reoffending within three years of the relevant conviction. The scheme is a significant road safety measure and will contribute to a reduction in road casualty figures. I hope that, in due course, it will become permanent, but in the meantime I look forward to its continuation and to the evaluation of its effectiveness.
I shall answer the questions asked by Members. I take on board the points that Members have made about the course. These days, when there is terrible carnage on the roads, it is important that we do all that we can to ensure that the number of accidents is reduced. Indeed, it has been suggested that we should have a policy of zero tolerance.
I was asked why the courses could not be provided free or at a reduced fee. It is reasonable that the participants finance the courses, although the cost of the course must not be a disincentive for potential participants. The Probation Board has set the fee with that in mind. The cost of running one course has been estimated at £1,000, which means that 10 participants are necessary for a course to break even. Thus far, the average number of course participants has been just under 10. I assure Members that fee levels will be considered when we make a decision on the scheme’s permanency. I am sure that Members appreciate the difficulties.
DrMcCrea referred to the locations in which the courses will be available. Under the extended experiment, courses will be available in Belfast, Ballymena, Londonderry and Armagh, and the offender will choose the location. The provision of courses in other places will be considered, if experience suggests that that is necessary. One of the first points that I made was about the situation for people from isolated areas, such as Enniskillen, my home town, Newry and other areas. My staff will examine that point.
Insurance companies in Northern Ireland do not normally offer reduced premiums to those who have completed a course, although one broker claims to offer such a reduction. Offenders are advised that there is a possibility of obtaining reduced premiums from an insurance broker, but it is up to them to trawl the market. My officials will pursue the matter with insurance brokers and companies in Northern Ireland. However, we cannot make promises, as it is a matter for the individual and the insurance company.
How will the Department increase uptake from the current level of 6%? For the extended experiment, the name of the course will be changed from ‘Rehabilitation Courses for Drink Drive Offenders’ to ‘Courses for Drink Drive Offenders’. That should, to some degree, address the perception that courses are for people with an alcohol problem.
12.00
From August 2000, all offenders referred have received a letter and information leaflet from the course organiser, explaining the purpose of the course and outlining its content. Leaflets are to be redesigned to present information in a simpler and more attractive way. The Department will issue a press release early in 2001 to highlight the extended scheme and what it offers. Solicitors will receive direct mailing, and magistrates will be informed of the extended experiment.
Mr Shannon asked whether courses were available for persons convicted of drug-related road traffic offences and whether they could be extended. He asked for the present breakdown of drink-related and drug-related offences. Alcohol-related offences are the main offences taken into consideration at present. Although drug-related offences are rarer, we shall consider them too.
This presentation on behalf of the community in general is most important as far as road safety is concerned. I trust that I have addressed Members’ questions to their satisfaction. My officials will identify any questions or points made that I have overlooked, and I shall write to those concerned. I thank Members for their interest in the debate and for their commendation. I am glad that everyone is in favour of the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly approves the Courses for Drink-Drive Offenders (Experimental Period) (Extension) Order (Northern Ireland) 2000.

Draft Financial Investigations Order: Assembly Ad Hoc Committee

Resolved:
That this Assembly appoints an Ad Hoc Committee to consider the draft Financial Investigations (Northern Ireland) Order laid by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 85(4)(b) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and to submit a report to the Assembly by 5 February 2001.
Composition: UUP 2 SDLP 2 DUP 2 SF 2 Other parties 3
Quorum: The quorum shall be five.
Procedure: The procedures of the Committee shall be such as the Committee shall determine. — [Mr B Hutchinson.]
The sitting was suspended at 12.03 pm.
On resuming (Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair) —

Enterprise, Trade and Investment
Tourism Advertising: North/South Co-Operation

1. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to make a statement on co-operation in advertising between the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and Bord Fáilte.
(AQO 472/00)


The Northern Ireland Tourist Board and Bord Fáilte have co-operated on joint advertising since 1987. Following the creation of the overseas tourism marketing initiative in 1995 and Brand Ireland in 1996, annual joint expenditure of approximately £10 million has generated approximately 400,000 annual enquiries. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board’s initial contribution of £500,000 was followed by annual contributions of £300,000.


Whatever the merits of joint advertising and marketing between Northern Ireland and the Republic, it is important that Northern Ireland’s product be clearly identified for potential visitors. Will the Minister assure the Assembly that Northern Ireland will be represented properly in the joint promotion logo?


The answer is "Yes." We have to understand that the objective is to increase the number of visitors to Northern Ireland. People coming from abroad see Europe as a unit and these islands as a unit; they do not see particular regions within those units.
It is clear, under the terms of the arrangements that have been entered into, that the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, in conjunction with Bord Fáilte, will be establishing this company. It is the creature of the two tourist boards. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board will retain the responsibility and requirements to continue with regional marketing. It was specifically written into the arrangements setting up the company that it treat, be aware of and take into account in its campaigns the particular circumstances that pertained here over the past 30 years. I am confident that that will be achieved.


I thank the Minister for his comments on the figures. With regard to the amount of money allocated and spent from Northern and Southern Ireland, can he indicate, for each region, the number of people who have made Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland their tourist destination? Is the joint advertising campaign providing value for money to the Northern Ireland Tourist Board? Also, when will the new chief executive be appointed?


With regard to value for money issues, advertising of any kind, as the Member will know, is extremely difficult to measure. At the same time, if it is not undertaken people will complain. We can only point to the fact that in the last few years there have been steady increases in the number of tourists and in the amount of their spend. Also, 400,000 enquiries per year have been generated as a result of the advertising. There is evidence on the web sites, and surveys are carried out to ask people where and how they heard about Northern Ireland. That gives some indication.
The Member will know that in any walk of life or in any commercial activity it is difficult to measure precisely how much activity comes through any particular type of advertising promotion — there is a variety of types. I am satisfied that the position with regard to advertising and promoting tourism is essential. Here in Northern Ireland, we are operating at one third of the capacity that I believe our industry has, if you compare us with our nearest neighbours in Scotland and the Republic.
With regard to the last point, proposals are under way for such an appointment. As the Member will understand, the current appointment is temporary, and I hope the situation will be clarified within the next few months.

Department Agencies

2. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment when he intends to report on the reorganisation of agencies responsible to his Department.
(AQO 471/00)


12. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment what progress has been made on creating a single development agency for Northern Ireland.
(AQO457/00)


I will answer questions 2 and 12 together.
On 26 October 2000 I issued a consultation paper to ministerial colleagues, the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee, the business representative bodies and other social partners of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and to the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance.
The consultation has ended, and I have received many helpful comments and representations. I plan to make a statement to this House before the Christmas recess.


I welcome the Minister’s response. He is undoubtedly aware that local authorities in Northern Ireland play an important role in economic regeneration. In his review, will he undertake to give positive consideration to increasing that role?


The Member knows my views on the role that local government can play in economic development, since I have experience of it, and was involved with it at the start of the 1990s. The answer to his question is "Yes". However, I have to add the caveat — which we have announced in the Programme for Government — that we will be carrying out a review of public administration generally, and that will include local government.
That reform proposal, when carried out — which I hope will be sooner rather than later — will result in the capacity of local government being increased in order to deal with many of the social and economic issues that local authorities face.
However, there already is, and will continue to be under any new proposal that I will be bringing forward to this House, a meaningful role for local authorities in such things as the Business Start Programme and in other partnership models, where I believe local authorities can bring not only resources and expertise, but local knowledge, which is absolutely critical to ensure that agencies of the Department are fully informed and aware of local needs and local sensitivities.


Does the Minister agree that the proliferation of quangos in Northern Ireland was the result of the many defects of direct rule, that it led to unaccountable government and that it was wasteful of public money? Can the Minister assure the Assembly that he will move speedily to dismantle these quangos and introduce accountable government to the people of Northern Ireland?


I entirely agree with the remarks of the hon Member. I believe that quangos were a substitute for, and a visible expression of, the absence of genuine accountable democracy. As the Member knows, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment has a limited number of agencies. We are currently examining those. I hope that, in time, he will see my determination to ensure that the number of such organisations is fewer rather than greater. However, we have to understand that there are a considerable number of quangos. There are scores of organisations; some are very large and some deliver significant services. I believe that in the review of public administration that the Executive has indicated it will be undertaking, these are exactly the issues that will be considered. I hope that all Assembly Members will have input into that review. I entirely endorse the Member’s sentiments.


In view of the many difficulties experienced by local entrepreneurs in trying to progress their business at a much quicker pace, does the Minister agree that effort should be made to cut out all unnecessary red tape? Perhaps a single agency, properly resourced, would contribute to that.


I take the point. I have answered previous questions about regulation and red tape. I have carried out a review of my Department, and, indeed, later this week I shall meet my officials again to examine whether particular regulations are absolutely necessary. Section by section, my Department will examine every piece of paper that has been generated to see whether it is essential.
The need for quicker responses is growing all the time, because of the changing nature of the businesses that we are being asked to support. The Assembly is committed to assisting the knowledge-based economy, and companies require quick responses — the old way is no longer the right way. I fully understand the Member’s sentiments.

Brussels Office for Northern Ireland (Department Representation)

3. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment if he plans to have a presence in the Office to be established in Brussels by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
(AQO456/00)


I certainly expect to make use of the facilities provided by the Executive’s office in Brussels. The IDB is examining the feasibility of a permanent presence in the office.


I am disappointed to hear that the Minister is only considering an IDB presence. He has already referred to Northern Ireland’s untapped tourism potential — a matter that is within his Department’s remit. There are moves to promote inward investment, which is a necessary part of local economic development, so the Minister should say definitely that there will be a Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment presence in the Brussels office — not that he is just considering it.


Responsibility for establishing the office lies with the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. I have made representations on this subject, but it is for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to decide the shape and nature of the Brussels office.
When I was a director of the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe I encouraged moves to establish the office. I was also involved in designating the site that has now been obtained; it is an excellent location directly beside the European Parliament building. The former Northern Ireland Centre in Europe had some IDB support to enable it to hold functions and bring people in, and the centre was used for that purpose on a number of occasions. I hope and expect that the same will apply in this case, but it requires the agreement of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. We have some representation in Germany, and we have organised a campaign to raise our profile in mainland Europe for early next year.
I hope to give a positive response to the Member’s question in due course. I hope that that will be the outcome.


The Minister told us that he was thinking about an IDB presence in Brussels. Does he agree that co-ordination would be enhanced greatly if the IDB office were to be located in the Executive Committee’s office?


I agree. It would make sense for IDB to be in that office, rather than in a separate one, and I have made representations on that basis. I also hope that it will be possible to reach whatever accommodation is required with the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe. Any Executive business on the European mainland should be carried out there, thus creating economies of scale. Anyone working in the office would have a status within the European system that would give them certain advantages. I am sure that you will appreciate that point, Madam Deputy Speaker. Anyone operating separately from and independently of that office would not have the same status, and that would diminish their role. I therefore fully support the Member’s views.

Electricity Prices

4. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to detail any discussions he has had with Northern Ireland Electricity plc regarding electricity price rises.
(AQO 474/00)


Following privatisation, responsibility for ensuring that electricity prices are cost-effective rests with the independent regulator. Northern Ireland Electricity plc (NIE) and the regulator issued a joint statement on 7 December on the introduction of a comprehensive package of measures aimed at mitigating the effects of the 9% increase in tariffs from January 2001.


While accepting that the regulator, rather than the Minister, has direct responsibility in this area, I am sure that the Minister will accept that all of us in the Assembly have a duty to address the problem of fuel poverty, which leads to hundreds of deaths every year. Will he and his Colleagues in the Executive Committee undertake to persuade NIE to take account of those in fuel poverty before it hikes its prices again?


I am very conscious of the anger that was expressed in this House on the day that the increase was announced. You will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we were having a debate on that very day and the views of Members were expressed from all sides of this House with equal vehemence.
The Member for East Londonderry (Mr McClarty) will be aware that the question of fuel poverty rests with my Colleague, the Minister for Social Development. However, my Department and I are conscious of the overall position with regard to electricity prices in Northern Ireland, which is and remains totally unsatisfactory.
As Members know, part of the problem rests with the contracts that were entered into in 1992, and part rests with the costs of distribution and transmission — which remains an NIE matter. Another part, which is outside our control, relates to rising world fuel prices throughout the year 2000. A cocktail of issues is involved.
We are trying to address those issues through more open competition — 35% of the market will be open for competition by April 2001. That primarily affects the commercial sector. However, the reality is that we are continuing to seek a long-term viable solution to this energy problem which has haunted us for the last nine years. It is only when we try to look at the global picture that we can get a response. Every time that there is an increase we are increasing upon a very high base. That is the fundamental problem, and we are trying to address its core rather than take a piecemeal approach to it.


The Minister’s reply illustrated the problem and the extent to which he appears to be powerless. He pointed out very strongly that the Assembly had debated this matter and that there had been accord right round the Chamber. Surely it is important, after nine or 10 years of these impossible contracts, that we should in some way be able to buy ourselves out of the horrible situation where domestic electricity prices are 53% greater than in the Republic and industrial electricity prices are 75% greater. How can we compete in the industrial sector?
Can the Minister engage with the chief executive of NIE on two issues — first, on the prices which have been referred to; secondly, on shareholders taking less and passing more profits back to the consumer, given the total cartel situation? Will he look at legislation to give the independent regulator more power to address the gross distortions that have been mentioned in relation to transmission and distribution?
Does the Minister agree that we must take action rather than wait for something to happen?


I assure the hon Member that I am taking action. I am involved with the issue continually. However, he knows that contracts were entered into some years ago. They are legally binding contracts.
He talks about buying out, but we are talking about huge sums of money here — and I emphasise that. This is not small change; we are talking about hundreds of millions of pounds. I am trying to find a mechanism to deal with this that does not break the bank of the Department of Finance and Personnel. Consultants have been appointed, and a team is looking at this every few days with a view to finding a solution. I can assure the honMember, however, that it will not be easy.
At present, the regulator is engaged in a review of transmission costs. That is something over which he and Northern Ireland Electricity have some control. The differential between distribution costs here and those on the mainland is growing, and that is a worrying factor. I said in a previous debate, and I repeat now, that we are planning to introduce a new utilities Bill in the next session. That will look at the regulator’s powers. It is my intention to increase the regulator’s powers.


With regard to electricity charges, many people, particularly farmers, find it unsatisfactory that, in addition to paying for the metered units, they are being charged ground rents. Does the Minister not think that that is double-charging? In any other industry those charges would be incorporated in the per unit price. Perhaps that should also be considered with a view to reducing prices.


I did not catch the early part of the Member’s question, as the sound system failed.
With regard to fuel costs, the Member will know that the contracts that have been entered into with the generators have two parts. There is a standby cost, which is an availability payment that the generator gets for having the facility available to Northern Ireland Electricity. There is also the direct cost of the fuel that is necessary to generate the electricity. The contract therefore has a variable part in the sense that the fuel cost element of it is directly linked to market prices.
The problem with this is that they are starting from a high base. When the contracts were entered into, the extent to which generators could make efficiencies in the power stations was underestimated. The efficiencies that were made have resulted in there being large gaps between the cost of generation and the contracts themselves, and so the generators have very lucrative contracts under those circumstances. The only solution to that is contained in my reply to the honMember for South Down (MrMcGrady).
The other matters that the Member referred to — if I picked them up correctly — are primarily ones for the regulator to deal with. When we introduce a utilities Bill, which we will have the opportunity to discuss in great detail, it is my intention to get down to the actual cost detail. That is the position, for instance, in GreatBritain. Then there is the whole question of who and how. The consumer’s interest, of course, has to be represented in these matters, but that is a question for another day.

North/South Trade and Business Development Body

5. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to make a statement on the budgetary allocation to the North-South Trade and Business Development Body.
(AQO 475/00)


The latest estimate of expenditure for the body shows a budget spend of £3·1million for the year ending 31March2001. That is made up of contributions of £1·06million from NorthernIreland and £2·132 million from the Republic of Ireland. The budget for 2001-02 is £8·63million sterling. That is made up of £2·8million from NorthernIreland and £5·75million from the Republic of Ireland.


I thank the Minister for his reply. We should all take special note of the relative proportions of contributions coming from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Can the Minister assure the House that NorthernIreland will make a fair proportional contribution to the total, rather than one which is excessive?


Yes. As the Member knows, the financing of these bodies varies. In one case, the Republic of Ireland’s contribution is eight times that of Northern Ireland. In this instance, a two-to-one basis was deemed appropriate. There are variations across the board, according to the work that is undertaken and the nature of the body.
Throughout, of course, the expenditures are subject to agreement and scrutiny by this House, and all Members have the opportunity at any point to examine the plans for the bodies. The details are available in the Assembly Library. After every meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council, the relevant Minister will be present to answer questions in the House. I am satisfied that Members will ensure that there is genuine accountability for the funds that are expended.


Given that Northern Ireland’s contribution to the budget will be about 33%, on what basis does the Minister judge that this kind of North/Southery creates good value for the people of Northern Ireland? Is he valuing it in terms of jobs promoted, and if so, can he tell us how many? Is he valuing it in terms of contacts made for new investments, and if so, can he tell us how many? Is it on a per head basis or per county basis? How exactly does he judge that a third of the cost is good value for the people of Northern Ireland?


The first objective is to increase trade. Clearly, the Republic has been one of our fastest- growing markets for a number of years. Looking at other examples in the EU where two countries have a land border, the relevant trade here is on a much smaller scale than is the case in France, Germany, Holland or Denmark. We are building supply chains. For instance, if there are companies on this island that could be trading with each other, there are opportunities for reducing supply chains, thereby reducing stockholdings. Goods could be sold on a just-in- time basis.
We will be looking at measurement. Output can be measured, in part, by the growth or otherwise of the amount of trade undertaken between companies here and companies in the Republic of Ireland. There will be networking opportunities, and we have already tried to promote some trade shows — we have had four so far — to try and get people to realise the potential of trading with those who are close to them. For example, Belfast City Council had "meet the buyer" days, which were intended to bring in people whom the council traded with, and people whom they did not trade with. New people came in and we generated new suppliers that we did not have before. The principle is exactly the same. One of the best methods of measurement is to see how trade actually increases, and we intend to do that.

Natural Gas (North-West)

6. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment what progress has been made on extending the natural gas pipeline to the north-west.
(AQO 458/00)


It is primarily for the private sector to initiate commercially viable projects to take gas to the north-west. The Director General for Gas Supply is currently considering a number of applications for licences to take natural gas to that part of the region.


Does the Minister agree that there could be some linkage between the proposed development of a North/South natural gas pipeline and that to the north-west?
Does he also agree that proposals to impose a public service levy in the Republic of Ireland could be detrimental to both projects?


The public service levy could have a detrimental effect on the viability of the North/South pipeline, but I want to take this opportunity to make it clear that the Department’s policy is to see pipelines North/South and to the north-west as an integrated system. We do not want any part missing; that is our objective.
I must stress to the Member, however, that in the private sector, there has to be economic viability, and there must be people who are prepared to carry out the work and undertake the commercial risk that is involved. We are putting an enormous amount of effort into this project. I have been in regular contact with my opposite number in the Republic, Mrs O’Rourke, and it is my earnest hope that these matters will crystallise within the next few weeks with an outcome that Members of this House will be able to support.

Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment
Students: Republic of Ireland

1. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to detail the decrease in the number of students from the Republic of Ireland studying at universities and further education colleges in Northern Ireland over the past two years and if he will address this in the forthcoming review of student finance.
(AQO 449/00)


The number of students from the Republic studying at Northern Irish higher education institutions fell slightly from 3,846 in 1998-99 to 3,354 in 1999-2000. However, the number of Southern students studying in Northern Irish further education colleges increased from 1,617 to 1,845 in the same period. The Member and, indeed, others should view these figures in the context of demographic trends in the South, where the 17-to-18-year-old cohort is now in decline in overall numbers at an estimated rate of 14% over the period from 1997 to 2004 and at increasingly greater rates thereafter. The terms of reference for the review of student finance focused on Northern Irish domicilied students.


Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.
I thank the Minister for his response and his assurance that this is more to do with demographic trends than with the poor level of support from the funding system in the North. I tabled this question on behalf of students in the Republic who are receiving maximum maintenance grants of IR£1,775 but lose £440 when this is converted to sterling. Also, students from the Republic are not entitled —


May we have your question, Mrs Nelis?


Yes. Thank you.


I did not hear a question.


Mrs Nelis, will you please put your question.


I asked the Minister to give me some information on the decline in the number of students from the South of Ireland. He assures me that this has to do with demographic trends. My point is that I welcome that.


I note the reference in the question to the forthcoming review of student finance. In the light of the detailed work and consultations that the Minister is undertaking, can he give us any indication of when he will be in a position to publish the work done so far on the review?


As I have frequently told Members, I have been working fairly strenuously on this issue for a number of weeks, and we are now in the penultimate stage. With respect to my proposals, I think that the forthcoming budget statement will give some indication as to the overall context. I also like to think that I will be in a position to announce the broad framework of my proposals later this week.


While accepting that students from other countries may enhance any academic institution, may I ask whether the Minister agrees that his first responsibility should be to ensure that students from Northern Ireland who wish to remain here for university- level education should have the right to do so? Furthermore, will the Minister undertake to increase the number of university places during his term of office?


The Member’s question relates to an issue that I have frequently referred to in this House. Significant increases have been planned throughout the period 1999-2004 in terms of higher and further education places in Northern Ireland. My first responsibility as Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment is to those students who are domiciled in Northern Ireland, just as my counterparts in neighbouring jurisdictions have a primary responsibility to the students domiciled in their jurisdictions.

Equal Community Initiative (Unemployed People)

2. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to outline the key features of the EQUAL Community Initiative and to indicate how the programme will benefit the unemployed.
(AQO 466/00)


The EQUAL Programme is a European Union initiative designed to test and promote new means of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in the workforce for the unemployed and those in work.
Projects must entail transnational co-operation with similar projects in other member states. In the light of local consultation, we propose that the Northern Ireland EQUAL Programme funding of £7 million throughout the period 2000-06 be directed at action under the two pillars of the European Employment Strategy; namely employability and equal opportunities. The benefit to the unemployed will be in the outcome of projects and that best practice in identifying inequality will be identified.


Does the Minister agree that the greatest challenge will be to design a training programme that the long-term unemployed can really benefit from, particularly in those areas that have suffered long-term unemployment?


EQUAL Programme funding is not intended — as I think the Member’s question is suggesting — to go directly towards training programmes. The amount of funding, namely £7 million, designated over a six-year period, is rather small. However, the programme will identify best practice through a number of highly focused projects, which will deal with all issues of equality in the workplace, for those already in work and for the unemployed. There are a range of other programmes attracting greater levels of investment from my Department, which go directly to the training programmes that the Member has expressed concern about.


Is the Minister satisfied with the consultation process involved in the programme, especially in terms of the community and voluntary sectors?


I am not aware of any concern regarding this matter. Written consultation with almost 150 interested bodies was undertaken in June and July of this year. In addition, a number of workshops were held for special interest groups to outline their views on the EQUAL Programme.
The findings indicated that the greatest support was for facilitating access and return to the labour market, which is in the employability pillar. Under the equal opportunities pillar, reducing gender gaps and supporting job desegregation was also well supported. These two areas are included in the draft proposal. Promoting lifelong learning and opening up the business creation process for all were also popular areas in which initiatives can be taken. However, these areas are already being dealt with by significant Government and other EU programmes.

Educational Guidance Service for Adults

3. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment what action he is taking to ensure equality of funding through the Educational Guidance Service for Adults to all constituencies.
(AQO477/00)


I trust that the Member is referring to the Educational Guidance Service for Adults (EGSA) and its role in allocating and administering funds under the European Peace Programme. EGSA is contracted by the Department to undertake this role. In allocating funding it is required to contribute to the peace objective of benefiting communities in an equitable and balanced way, focusing particularly on those areas and sections of the population most affected by conflict and suffering most deprivation. Its specific contribution is to direct support towards those with the greatest need for educational guidance, counselling services and learner support.


It is interesting that my question follows a question on equality. Does the Minister agree that there is a continuing need for education in all constituencies? Is he aware of the £4·3million spent during PeaceI? Only £26,000 was spent in my constituency of East Antrim. If there is a continuing role for EGSA during PeaceII, can the Minister ensure that the funding will be spread more widely to areas of need throughout Northern Ireland in the future? I am sure he will agree that all constituencies have such areas.


I agree that there are areas of need. EGSA responds to need. However, EGSA allocates its resources not on a constituency basis but on the basis of need that has been identified. That is in accordance with a fundamental principle of the current Programme for Government — namely, Targeting Social Need and simultaneously ensuring equality of opportunity for all. If, however, the Member has specific concerns I will be only too pleased to receive the details and to discuss the situation with him.


The Minister will be aware that adult learning centres are located in large towns, in urban environments. This has the unfortunate effect of discriminating against those in rural areas, where such centres are not available. Twenty-four per cent of the working population make up what we call the low skills base, and this is largely centred in rural communities. In view of that, I propose the creation of a mobile literacy centre, which would enable the more widely distributed rural communities to take advantage of adult learning programmes. Will the Minister consider funding such a scheme?


The Minister is always ready to consider schemes which address particular needs bearing on the responsibilities of his Department. Certainly, if MrMcGrady has particular suggestions in mind, I am open to receiving them and giving them detailed consideration.
Part of the question may anticipate issues relating to initiatives that may be taken with regard to a University for Industry, and the learndirect centres that will be established under its auspices. These are beginning to take root right across the North. Using modern means of electronic communication in particular, and ensuring that people from all backgrounds — and particularly those with special needs — have access to these centres, we will be able to go a long way towards meeting some of the concerns lying behind the Member’s question.
These issues will recur with a later question.

University Places

4. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to outline how Northern Ireland compares to other parts of the United Kingdom in relation to university places per head of population.
(AQO 463/00)


First, it is necessary to explain that the ratio of places to population is calculated using full-time undergraduate enrolments at higher education institutions in 1999-2000 against the 18-to-54-year-old population, and these figures are expressed per thousand of the population. The ratio of full-time undergraduate enrolments at Northern Irish higher education institutions per thousand of the population was just under 30 at 29·8. That compares to ratios of 32·4 in England, 40·3 in Wales and 42·3 in Scotland.


I thank the Minister for that information, which clearly shows that we are not just in deficit against England but in major deficit compared to Scotland and Wales in terms of the number of places in higher education. Has the Minister raised the issue with other UK Ministers, and what plans has he to expand undergraduate enrolments, perhaps through using the institutes of further and higher education to ensure that more graduate places can be supplied?


It is amazing how frequently the same issues come up under different questions. I addressed the issue in a previous question pertinent to the Member’s supplementary. I repeat myself for the Member’s benefit. As a result of the 1998 comprehensive spending review and my announcement earlier this year of Government support for the Springvale educational project, some 2,240 additional university places will be phased in between 1999 and 2004. Any further expansion will be subject to consideration of budget proposals. With respect to our further and higher education institutions — the FE colleges, as they are more commonly called — the Member may be aware of initiatives I am taking to expand enrolment in those institutions. In particular, as the experimental phase of the foundation degrees, which will be introduced next September, rolls out, we will see over the coming years an increased number of places made available.
Many students wish to pursue courses that are not currently available and unlikely ever to be made available in our existing institutions. Many Members will agree that we should afford students the opportunity to pursue studies across the water and not inhibit them by denying them access to the same levels of funding as those who attend institutions here enjoy.


Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom eolas a fháil i dtaca leis na tosca sna sé chondae is fiche.
Will the Minister outline how the Six Counties compare to the rest of Ireland in relation to university places per head of population? Has he explored or will he explore the feasibility of establishing a university in the north-west, across a number of cross-border sites, to meet future requirements and which may have the potential to generate EU funding?


There are many issues in that question. The Member is inviting me to stand up and unveil a new higher education policy in order to answer it.
Ach ar aon gcéad dul síos ba mhaith liom a rá go bhfuil suas le naoi gcéad ochtó is a hocht mac léinn ó Thuaisceart Éireann ag gabháil do chúrsaí sa Phoblacht agus go bhfuil, mar a thuigfidh an tUasal McElduff, a lán mac léinn ag teacht ón Deisceart go dtí an Tuaisceart mar a léirigh mé i mo fhreagra ar an gceist a chuir a chomrádaí, bean Uí Niallais. Tá comhoibriú ar siúl idir tuaisceart agus deisceart na tíre maidir le cúrsaí ardoideachais agus cuidím leis sin; agus tá sé sna pleananna s’agamsa maidir le cúrsaí trasteorann treisiú leis an méid comhoibrithe sin atá ar siúl. [Interruption]
A translation of the above paragraph, supplied by the Minister, is provided at the Annex to this Report (see page 36).


Order. I was waiting for the translation.


As it was a supplementary question, I answered spontaneously, as I am quite capable of doing, in the Irish language, which, under Standing Orders, I am entitled to use.


On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.


Order. As a courtesy to those Members who do not understand Irish, the Minister is invited to translate his words.


I expressed myself spontaneously. My concentration at this point is on the next question. If somebody has kept a record of what I said in Irish I will certainly give a translation. Those who are anxious to receive a response will — [Interruption]


How can we ask supplementary questions if we do not understand the answer?


Order.


After Question Time I will provide a written translation to all those who seek it.


Is it appropriate for Ministers to answer in this way?


Order.

Training and Employment Agency

5. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to make a statement on the Training and Employment Agency’s Next Steps agency status.
(AQO 478/00)


I will endeavour to answer in the best — dare I say it? — Queen’s English.
I refer the Member to my answer to Assembly question 293/00 on 13 November, when I announced that I had recently reviewed the agency’s status and concluded that its formal status as a Next Steps agency should be discontinued with immediate effect.


Why has the Minister decided to do that now, ahead of a general review of the whole administration?


The agencies were created with the aim of allowing Ministers to set policy and gives officials responsibility for day-to-day operations, with greater freedom to manage, while being held publicly accountable for the quality of service. As a local Minister answerable to the public for all the Department’s activities, I judged it to be no longer appropriate to have 90% of my Department in a separate agency. I took that step in order to enhance the administrative arrangements within the Department. It prejudices neither the terms and conditions of the people working in the agency nor any accountability to the House.

Access to Employment: ‘Work-Life Balance’ Campaign

6. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment how the ‘Work-Life Balance’ campaign will promote access to employment among parents and part-time workers.
(AQO 467/00)


The ‘Work-Life Balance’ campaign will encourage employers to look closely at the business benefits of flexible working. The campaign will help parents to return to work or remain in employment in a way which will enable them to balance their work with their other responsibilities. Members may have noted that I inaugurated this campaign last week, and detailed information about it can be obtained, on request, from my Department.


Will the Minister expand on what prompted this campaign and which factors influenced the Department’s thinking on this initiative?


The campaign itself has grown out of a number of previous initiatives within my Department, focusing on childcare needs and the development of what might be described as family-friendly policies in the workplace. It is designed to be much more inclusive, prompting employers to take account of many of the needs and interests of their workers, as opposed to focusing exclusively on the family needs of workers.
In many respects, it is likely to focus on the management of time, flexitime and part-time work. In this age, as the use of electronic means of communication in the workplace increases, we will have to consider whether it is necessary for all work to take place on the actual premises of an enterprise. It will consider a wide range of related issues, as well as workers’ outside interests, such as service to the community. It will ask how employers might make adjustments to take account of those factors and create more positive conditions for employees, particularly in enterprises. Obviously, over the next three years of the campaign, time will tell how effectively those broad objectives are being met.

Learndirect

7. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment what progress he has made on the delivery of learndirect in Northern Ireland and what plans he has to expand the service over the next year.
(AQO 469/00)


Ceist uimhir seacht.


Tá mé sásta ceist uimhir a seacht a fhreagairt. I am pleased to answer question 7. I was able to remember that much Irish.
My Department has been working closely with the University for Industry to introduce learndirect to Northern Ireland. The Belfast call centre of the learndirect helpline has taken over 5,000 calls about learning opportunities since it was established early in the summer. The University for Industry has so far endorsed 16 learning centres, four of which have already been operating as test centres, which will be operational by April of next year. Further additions are likely after April.


I welcome what the Minister has said. Can he go further and assure us that the learndirect service will be available in all parts of Northern Ireland and, in particular, in the rural areas?


Yes, I will give that general assurance. Members who closely follow adult education issues, in particular, will know that consortia are frequently being established in different areas across Northern Ireland, with the lead being taken by local further education colleges. These colleges are identifying, in their turn, various community organisations that might work in association with them to provide the services of learndirect centres, the establishment of which is an unfolding process. I trust that they will become available, as is necessary, across Northern Ireland.

Department Staff: New Deal Participants

8. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment what is the percentage of New Deal participants on the staff of his Department compared with that for the United Kingdom Department for Education and Employment; and if he will make a statement.
(AQO 476/00)


The Department currently employs 0·5% of its total staff through New Deal. In the Department for Education and Employment, 2·2% of staff are employed through New Deal. The latter employs New Deal staff in two grades while my Department recruits to the administrative assistant grade only.


The Northern Ireland figure is considerably lower than that in London. Does the Minister not agree that we should attempt to get closer to that standard of 2·2%, which does not seem to be a very demanding target?


Comparisons are not always easy to make. The Member is comparing my Department with the Department of Education and Employment in London, which is very different in terms of scale and scope. The Training and Employment Agency has held recruitment competitions in Belfast, Derry and North Down, specifically for New Deal participants. The vacancies were circulated to New Deal personal advisers throughout Northern Ireland, who preselected and encouraged their clients to apply for the posts.
No upper limit was placed on the number of posts available for New Deal participants, who also retained the right to apply for posts in the Civil Service through open competition. We have certainly been making progress in trying to encourage a greater level of application with at least two posts filled by New Deal participants.

Further and Higher Education: Disability Rights

9. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment what progress he has made in implementing the recommendations of the Disability Rights Task Force report on further and higher education.
(AQO 464/00)


I am indeed committed to passing legislation to give effect to those Disability Rights Task Force recommendations on education which fall within the remit of my Department. The nature and timing of such legislation is under consideration.


What would the main impact of any new legislation be?


The recommendations of the Disability Rights Task Force report cover areas such as consultation, statutory code of practice, rights of redress in cases of complaint, continuance of non-legislative measures, and the extension of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Overall, the main impact would be to extend comprehensive and enforceable rights to education for disabled people in Northern Ireland on the same basis as in the rest of the UK.


Time is up. We must move on.


On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister responded to the original question posed by MrFord, the Member for South Antrim, leading to a series of additional points including one raised by MrMcElduff in Irish, to which the Minister responded in Irish without any translation. Will you investigate whether that is in accordance with the procedures of the House? It is particularly important in the light of the fact that it meant that Members lacking the questionable benefit of an ability to speak Irish were unable to ask a further supplementary question.


As you know, Standing Order 73 permits Members to speak in the language of their choice. That is clear. However, I have sympathy for those Members who are restricted in their contributions, especially during Question Time. Nonetheless, Standing Order 19(7) shows that there has been no breach of order, for the question was put in Irish and was answered in Irish. The answer to the supplementary question was therefore understood by the Member who asked it.


Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Do you consider that the Minister fulfilled his responsibility to the Assembly by answering in Irish when Members were not able to understand the response?


The Speaker has ruled that according to Standing Orders the Member is entitled to speak in the language of his choice. As you are aware, the Minister has offered to provide Members with a written translation, and that is acceptable.


Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is one thing for the Minister to offer a translation after the event, but how were Members supposed to ask supplementary questions on the basis of an answer they could not understand?


I refer the Member to Standing Order 19(7). The answer to the original question was given in English. The supplementary question was responded to in Irish. Standing Order 19(7) says that questions should be answered as clearly and as fully as possible and that they are not debatable. A supplementary question may be asked to elucidate an answer. Such supplementary questions shall be answered individually as they arise, and further supplementary questions may be asked only at the discretion of the Speaker.


I want clarification. For some years now, a Member who speaks in a language other than English has followed with an English translation so that Members who do not speak the language of delivery may understand. Are you, Madam Deputy Speaker, saying that we are moving away from that understanding or tradition? I want to establish that this is a departure from the way in which the Assembly has been run for some years.


There is no requirement in Standing Orders for a Member to provide a translation. The issue can be raised with the Business Committee, whose members, I am sure, have listened to today’s debate and will examine the matter.

Social Development
Purchase of Housing Executive Dwellings

1. asked the Minister for Social Development to explain current legislation which denies persons aged 60 or over the opportunity to purchase their own homes from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive; and if he will make a statement.
(AQO481/00)


4. asked the Minister for Social Development to detail any plans he has to review the criteria for purchasing Housing Executive dwellings.
(AQO 451/00)


I propose to take questions 1 and 4 together.
The design of the Housing Executive house sales scheme, rather than legislation, defines house sales policy. Under the scheme the over-60s can purchase general housing. Dwellings that are suitable for elderly people, such as single-storey or ground-floor accommodation, are not for sale if a tenant is over 60 years of age when the tenancy is first awarded. The purpose of this exclusion is to ensure that enough properties are available to meet the increasing demand for accommodation to meet the needs of elderly people. The Housing Executive has confirmed that a review of the scheme is planned and that it hopes to hold consultations with groups representing elderly people in the new year.


I thank the Minister for his reply and welcome the review.
Can the Minister confirm that he has had representations from many local authorities on this issue? Does he not agree that persons of the age stated in the question have probably been in public housing for a considerable time, have probably paid the purchase value, and more, of their dwellings and, because of longer life expectancy, are likely to live in their homes for much longer than was originally anticipated? Should these people not have the right to own their houses?


I have some sympathy with the Member on this matter and assure him that the Housing Executive is currently in the process of conducting a lengthy review. In my opinion, there is some ambiguity, and we will look into the matter very closely.


Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the news that a review is under way into this aspect of Housing Executive policy. Most Members will agree that the current practice is fairly arbitrary and discriminatory. Has this policy been tested against equality legislation requirements and human rights provisions? If not, will that happen during the review that he proposes to undertake?


I can confirm that it has been equality- tested. I am not prepared to accept that the practice is discriminatory, but I am prepared to state that it needs to be reviewed and that it will be reviewed.


I was glad to hear the Minister’s reply. He has already answered part of my supplementary question. In the past, supply and demand were often used as an excuse for abuse in this sector. Can the Minister assure the House that during this review good, clear policies will be proposed to counter arguments of abuse and that there are people in the Department and in the Executive who are well able to devise such policies to enable house sales to be made available to the over-60s?


The Member has stated that there is a degree of potential abuse. I agree, and for that reason we have a degree of ambiguity. However, there is enough expertise and knowledge to ensure that we can get the problem sorted out reasonably well and to most people’s satisfaction.


Does the Minister agree that there appears to be an inconsistency in the current policy? If someone under the age of 60 moves into a house that is deemed to be specifically for elderly people, he can purchase it. However, someone over the age of 60 who moves into the same house cannot. Can the Minister assure us that that aspect will be dealt with in the review? And when will the review be published?


The Member confirms the points we are trying to make. He shares my concern regarding the ambiguity. The review will take place early in the new year.


I am grateful to the Minister for that indication. Will the review look at the anomalies in inherited tenancies and in the ability to purchase houses? If legislation is required, will the Minister make a bid for legislative time in the House?


May I remind the Member that we have a new Housing Bill in the legislative timetable? It is a considerable Bill, with 200-plus clauses, but I can assure the Member that the matter will be addressed. We hope that by the time the review has taken place and the new Housing Bill has been debated, we will have come up with most of the answers.

Mixed Housing

2. asked the Minister for Social Development why there is no mention of mixed housing in the draft Programme for Government.
(AQO 461/00)


People are entitled to choose where they wish to live. While there are many examples of areas in the private sector where people from different communities live side by side in harmony, the circumstances are such that the majority of applicants for social housing still choose to live where people from their particular community predominate. While the Programme for Government makes no mention of mixed housing, I hope that over time the "growing as a community" aspect of it will create an environment in which community background is not a factor in housing choice.


I thank the Minister for his response. The Programme for Government contains plenty of rhetoric about promoting community relations but little that is specific. Given that housing in urban areas — which include middle-class as well as working-class areas — is now more segregated than at any time for 30years, and given that many people who may wish to live in mixed areas find themselves forced into particular areas because of the present lack of mixed areas, is it not incumbent on the Minister to do something to promote mixed housing?


That is being looked at. I reassure the Member that the Housing Executive is currently considering a report from Queen’s University that deals with the potential for mixed housing in new social housing developments.

Town Centre Management

3. asked the Minister for Social Development what progress has been made towards a White Paper on town centre management.
(AQO 462/00)


The former Department of the Environment commissioned consultants to report on town centres to ensure that those outside Belfast and Londonderry were thriving and healthy. The consultants have now reported, and my Department has taken the lead on the report in consultation with other relevant Departments. Following widespread consultation earlier this year, a conference was held in Armagh on 26 October 2000 at which a wide range of interests focusing on key issues in the report was discussed. The report’s 27 recommendations, if accepted, would affect the policies of several Departments. An interdepartmental steering group is overseeing the work of co-ordinating a response to the recommendations. It is anticipated that relevant Ministers will receive the recommendations by March 2001, when I will decide whether the Assembly or other interests need to be consulted and, if so, when and in what way.


I thank the Minister for his answer and for the fact that he recognises interdepartmental responsibilities in this matter. What plans does he have to work with his colleague the Minister of the Environment to impose a moratorium on out-of-town retail developments in order to protect the fabric of town centres in Northern Ireland?


It was recognised from the outset that recommendations in the town centre reinvigoration report might need to be reflected in the regional strategic framework and other government policies. For that reason, an interdepartmental steering group, comprising officials responsible for planning and transport, was established to take these matters forward in an integrated manner.


What provision has been made in the draft budget to promote the reinvigoration of town centres?


That is a difficult question, as we have not yet had the final submission. Once we have been made aware of that, we will examine budgetary figures. I will write to the Member with a more detailed answer.

Availability of Good-Quality, Affordable Housing

5. asked the Minister for Social Development what steps he is taking to ensure that good-quality, affordable housing is available to all in Northern Ireland.
(AQO 479/00)


I am taking a number of steps in that regard in this financial year. My Department has allocated approximately £60 million in grants to housing associations. Along with the private finance that they lever in, that money will enable them to provide approximately 1,400 good-quality houses for rent. In addition, over £5 million has been allocated to the Northern Ireland Co-Ownership Housing Association. That will enable around 560 participants on low incomes to become homeowners.


Has the Minister taken into account the large amount of affordable social housing that is going to be required, along with the 8,500 private homes which are calculated as being required in the regional plan? Will he consider taking steps in the forthcoming Housing Bill to emulate the situation in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland? In those places, when planning permission for a sizeable development of land for housing purposes is asked for, part of the land is allocated for social or affordable housing. That is the rule enforced in the Republic of Ireland. It might assist people in the Province — particularly young people who cannot afford a mortgage — to be able to have such housing. If the Minister would like further information on the Republic’s actions, I would be happy to give it to him.


I do not want to sound unconcerned, but I cannot answer for the Republic of Ireland. There are times, perhaps, when they have difficulty answering for themselves. I am lost as to what the Member’s real question is. Is he asking me to consider a mixture of social and private housing, or is he asking me to consider prices in relation to socal and private housing? I would like clarification.


I am happy to clarify. In planning matters, there is discordance between the Department for Social Development and the Department of the Environment. That should be attended to, because otherwise developers will build large estates for private purposes on some of the best sites in Northern Ireland. If this were a requirement before planning permission was given, affordable housing might be made available.


As I understand it, the question is: should a developer be required to set aside a parcel of land for social housing?


I am unable to answer that question on the hoof. I will look at it and come back to the Member and anyone else who is interested in the answer. That is the best I can offer at this stage.


Is the Minister telling the House that he is unaware of the issue of social housing, which has been under discussion for at least two years? Many elected representatives believed that Government plans to deal with social housing would be developed. [Interruption]
I am speaking to the Minister, not to Mr Peter Robinson.


I might digress a little to inform Mr Dallat that I have been interested in housing for 30 years — long before I entered the Assembly. As a district councillor, I have represented Housing Executive tenants for 27 years, and I have worked as an estate agent for 29 years. I am quite aware of the housing situation in Northern Ireland. I do not claim to know it all, by any means, and perhaps not even half as much as the Member knows. However, I certainly claim to have some knowledge of housing in Northern Ireland. I have great concern for social housing and even greater concern for house prices.
As the Minister responsible for housing, I am most anxious to ensure that everyone in every Northern Ireland family has a good roof over his head. I am already on record as having stated my belief that a good home is not a privilege but a fundamental right. I am working hard towards achieving low-priced housing — if that is how one chooses to term it — which is within everyone’s grasp. I hope that that reassures the Member.

Local Advice Services

6. asked the Minister for Social Development what steps he is taking to enhance the provision of advice services at local level.
(AQO 446/00)


Arrangements for the support of local advice services were introduced in April 1995, when lead responsibility for advice services provision in Northern Ireland was allocated to district councils as part of their wider responsibilities under the community services programme. I shall shortly be considering proposals for the future of the community services programme, including local advice services, as a result of the recently completed major review of the programme.


I should like to direct the Minister’s attention to the serious underfunding of citizens advice bureaux in almost all district council areas, with his Department now contributing an average of only £15,000 per year to each. Is he aware that for the last 10 years there has been a moratorium on increases by the former Department of Education — something that presents enormous difficulties to advice centres and district councils? In view of the fact that the Social Security Agency has received a budget increase of 7%, will he consider unfreezing this moratorium on the rate support grant directly distributed by district councils to advice centres? After all, the advice centres and the councils are now supporting citizens advice bureaux to a greater extent than the Department itself.


I could answer this question in four parts. The Social Security Agency has implemented an information, advice and assistance policy aimed at providing a more comprehensive advice service to its customers. This was communicated to customers through the new customer charter, which I launched on 11 October. The charter was widely publicised in the media and gives a clear commitment to customers that staff will provide information and advice about all benefits, as well as assisting with form completion.


The advice centres?


I shall come to them in a second.
This service is available in all front offices. As a result, I sincerely hope and believe that the CAB’s workload will be reduced. If information and advice are to be given through SSA offices, it must follow that fewer people will be going to the Citizens’ Advice Bureau (CAB). Having said that, I also wish to express my appreciation of the CAB’s work. It does an excellent job across the Province. I recognise that, along with other groups, the CAB has had a moratorium on funds, but that is the position. We hope that after the announcement of 11 October its workload will be reduced.

Town Centre Management

7. asked the Minister for Social Development what plans he has to provide central funding for town centre management partnerships.
(AQO 460/00)


The consultants’ report on town centre reinvigoration recommends that town centre management, as an approach, should be promoted as an essential pre- requisite to funding being provided for town centre schemes.
My Department believes that town centre management can play an important part in improving town centres throughout Northern Ireland and is supportive of this recommendation. My Department is therefore exploring the possibility of bidding for funding for town centre management in the next tranche of European Union funding. I will let the Member know the outcome.


Does the Minister agree that it would be unfair if his Department, on one hand, were to encourage town centre management partnerships and, on the other, were to refuse to fund these, leaving them, as his Colleagues have done, to be funded entirely by local councils?


I take the point that the Member is trying to make. There would not be much point in our initiating town centre management strategies and then walking away after bringing them to a certain stage. Once we have the report we will be looking at all aspects, and I will report to the Assembly on the particular matter. It is a valid point — there would not be much point if there were nothing available to the towns to get on with the schemes.


Like others, I welcome the concept of town centre management and all that it can do, such as co-operation with local business, local authorities, and so on. Can the Minister state briefly when a town is a town or a large village or a small town? What is the definition of "town"?


I do not know whether the Member is asking me whether Castlederg is a town, village or city, and I will not attempt to answer that question at this stage. If the Member can be patient, we will bring forward this report, which he will find enlightening. It will be clearly defined in that report exactly what is a town and what size of population will deem it to be such. I will ensure that Mr Hussey gets a copy of the report, and he will clearly see whether Castlederg and similar towns are included in that definition.

Community and Voluntary Sector: Compact with Government

8. asked the Minister for Social Development to detail the progress made on the compact between Government and the community and voluntary sector in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
(AQO 455/00)


The compact was published in December 1998, and the Assembly endorsed it in February 2000. It gave a number of commitments to actions that would support and lend substance to the values and principles outlined in it, including the preparation of a supporting document, namely the strategy. This sets out how the Government will put the principles and commitments in the compact into practice and keep it under review. The strategy will be the yardstick against which performance on the implementation impact of the compact will be measured. The strategy is now well advanced, and a draft should be ready for public consultation by the summer.


Will the Minister detail what he means by the term "the public"? I am concerned, for I am aware that a number of area partnerships and others are asking questions, saying that they have not had many details. I ask the Minister to ensure that any consultation is wide.


The compact applies to the relationship between the voluntary and community sector and government, both central and local. That includes Departments, departmental public bodies, statutory agencies and district councils. I hope that the Member will agree that the net has been thrown fairly wide.

Housing Executive Tenants: Debt

9. asked the Minister for Social Development to detail the debt of Housing Executive tenants for each of the last three years.
(AQO 453/00)


Existing tenant debt in the last three years is as follows: for 1997-98, £10·8 million; for 1998-99, £11·5 million; for 1999-2000, £12·3 million.


I thank the Minister for his response. I am not surprised that it indicates an upward trend. Will the Minister take that into account when determining the new rent and rates rise that will be levied on those who rent Housing Executive properties? It is evident that as more and more people are now in low-paid employment, they have more difficulties in paying their Housing Executive debt.


I have listened carefully to the advice given to me. I can assure the Member that it will be so. I also want to reassure the Assembly in relation to rent arrears. This is not something that the Housing Executive takes lightly. It has a very robust policy for gathering in rent arrears. It is something that I do not take lightly either. There should be a determined effort to ensure that all tenants pay their rents; it is a tragedy when only some are actually doing so. One half pays, and the other half lets it. I do not think it is as bad as that, but I am concerned about the level of rent arrears. It is a matter that we will be considering seriously. I can assure the Member that it will not be lightly treated by any means.


I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. Will he provide the Assembly with a detailed analysis of the debt that is outstanding on a regional basis and, indeed, on a local district office basis so that Members of this House and the general public can see where the debt is?


I do not have a problem with doing that if is possible to do so. If it is possible, the Department will provide that information, for it is not trying to hide away from this issue. It is a good question, and I will certainly address it. I will write to the Member with all the details that he has asked for.

Housing Executive: North Belfast Strategy

10. asked the Minister for Social Development to detail what priority he has given in the Department’s draft budget 2001-02 for a start to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive’s Strategy for North Belfast.
(AQO 470/00)


I have already publicly stated my support for the housing strategy for north Belfast, which is a programme designed by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to meet a particular need in that part of the city. The Housing Executive has a duty to tackle north Belfast’s chronic housing need aggressively, to stamp out bad housing and cut down on urgent housing need. I am determined that that will be done with energy and creativity. This is an operational matter, however, and, that being the case, the timing and allocation of funding will be the responsibility of the Housing Executive.


I want to express disappointment with the Minister’s reply. He has indicated that he supports the Housing Executive’s north Belfast strategy. However, he fails to produce the means whereby this strategy can be fully implemented. As he knows well, north Belfast has the worst housing in all of Belfast — indeed, throughout Northern Ireland. The Minister’s reply is therefore somewhat laissez-faire in its thrust and lacking in the commitment that one would expect from a Minister.


I share the Member’s concern and his disappointment, but I want to re-emphasise that a bid of £4·1 million was submitted. Unfortunately, the Executive does not share the concerns of MrMaginness and myself. Its members do not give this the same priority as we do. I regret that, and I have no doubt that he regrets it.
It would be better, however, if he were to ride in behind my efforts rather than trying to throw roadblocks in the way. I do not want to misrepresent him — normally he is a very genuine individual — but Mr Maginness should accept that the best effort was made. Unfortunately, the Executive did not interpret it as such.
I will value the Member’s support in the future in making any representations that he can. If he wants to come and speak to me on this issue, I am quite ready and willing to listen.


Does the Minister think it would be useful for the six North Belfast MLAs to meet with him and then approach the Executive on that basis?


Mr Hutchinson is a member of the Committee for Social Development. He knows the number of times I have attended Committee meetings, and he is aware that I have discussed this matter with him and his Colleagues. He can gauge whether I am sincere. I cannot force him to make up his mind on that. However, I remind him that there are a number of Members on that Committee and that they have ample opportunity to make representations to me through the Committee. I can assure him, his Colleagues and the House that I want to see the north Belfast strategy go forth, irrespective of what Members may think of my political views.


Can the Minister remind us how many SDLP Ministers are on the Executive, which refused the bid for money for north Belfast?


Time is up.


The answer is three.


Perhaps the Minister will provide a written response to that question.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)
Private Notice Question

Enterprise, Trade and Investment

Tourism Advertising: North/South Co-Operation

Mr Billy Armstrong: 1. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to make a statement on co-operation in advertising between the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and Bord Fáilte.
(AQO 472/00)

Sir Reg Empey: The Northern Ireland Tourist Board and Bord Fáilte have co-operated on joint advertising since 1987. Following the creation of the overseas tourism marketing initiative in 1995 and Brand Ireland in 1996, annual joint expenditure of approximately £10 million has generated approximately 400,000 annual enquiries. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board’s initial contribution of £500,000 was followed by annual contributions of £300,000.

Mr Billy Armstrong: Whatever the merits of joint advertising and marketing between Northern Ireland and the Republic, it is important that Northern Ireland’s product be clearly identified for potential visitors. Will the Minister assure the Assembly that Northern Ireland will be represented properly in the joint promotion logo?

Sir Reg Empey: The answer is "Yes." We have to understand that the objective is to increase the number of visitors to Northern Ireland. People coming from abroad see Europe as a unit and these islands as a unit; they do not see particular regions within those units.
It is clear, under the terms of the arrangements that have been entered into, that the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, in conjunction with Bord Fáilte, will be establishing this company. It is the creature of the two tourist boards. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board will retain the responsibility and requirements to continue with regional marketing. It was specifically written into the arrangements setting up the company that it treat, be aware of and take into account in its campaigns the particular circumstances that pertained here over the past 30 years. I am confident that that will be achieved.

Mr Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his comments on the figures. With regard to the amount of money allocated and spent from Northern and Southern Ireland, can he indicate, for each region, the number of people who have made Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland their tourist destination? Is the joint advertising campaign providing value for money to the Northern Ireland Tourist Board? Also, when will the new chief executive be appointed?

Sir Reg Empey: With regard to value for money issues, advertising of any kind, as the Member will know, is extremely difficult to measure. At the same time, if it is not undertaken people will complain. We can only point to the fact that in the last few years there have been steady increases in the number of tourists and in the amount of their spend. Also, 400,000 enquiries per year have been generated as a result of the advertising. There is evidence on the web sites, and surveys are carried out to ask people where and how they heard about Northern Ireland. That gives some indication.
The Member will know that in any walk of life or in any commercial activity it is difficult to measure precisely how much activity comes through any particular type of advertising promotion — there is a variety of types. I am satisfied that the position with regard to advertising and promoting tourism is essential. Here in Northern Ireland, we are operating at one third of the capacity that I believe our industry has, if you compare us with our nearest neighbours in Scotland and the Republic.
With regard to the last point, proposals are under way for such an appointment. As the Member will understand, the current appointment is temporary, and I hope the situation will be clarified within the next few months.

Department Agencies

Mr Danny Kennedy: 2. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment when he intends to report on the reorganisation of agencies responsible to his Department.
(AQO 471/00)

Mr Seamus Close: 12. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment what progress has been made on creating a single development agency for Northern Ireland.
(AQO457/00)

Sir Reg Empey: I will answer questions 2 and 12 together.
On 26 October 2000 I issued a consultation paper to ministerial colleagues, the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee, the business representative bodies and other social partners of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and to the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance.
The consultation has ended, and I have received many helpful comments and representations. I plan to make a statement to this House before the Christmas recess.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I welcome the Minister’s response. He is undoubtedly aware that local authorities in Northern Ireland play an important role in economic regeneration. In his review, will he undertake to give positive consideration to increasing that role?

Sir Reg Empey: The Member knows my views on the role that local government can play in economic development, since I have experience of it, and was involved with it at the start of the 1990s. The answer to his question is "Yes". However, I have to add the caveat — which we have announced in the Programme for Government — that we will be carrying out a review of public administration generally, and that will include local government.
That reform proposal, when carried out — which I hope will be sooner rather than later — will result in the capacity of local government being increased in order to deal with many of the social and economic issues that local authorities face.
However, there already is, and will continue to be under any new proposal that I will be bringing forward to this House, a meaningful role for local authorities in such things as the Business Start Programme and in other partnership models, where I believe local authorities can bring not only resources and expertise, but local knowledge, which is absolutely critical to ensure that agencies of the Department are fully informed and aware of local needs and local sensitivities.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: Does the Minister agree that the proliferation of quangos in Northern Ireland was the result of the many defects of direct rule, that it led to unaccountable government and that it was wasteful of public money? Can the Minister assure the Assembly that he will move speedily to dismantle these quangos and introduce accountable government to the people of Northern Ireland?

Sir Reg Empey: I entirely agree with the remarks of the hon Member. I believe that quangos were a substitute for, and a visible expression of, the absence of genuine accountable democracy. As the Member knows, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment has a limited number of agencies. We are currently examining those. I hope that, in time, he will see my determination to ensure that the number of such organisations is fewer rather than greater. However, we have to understand that there are a considerable number of quangos. There are scores of organisations; some are very large and some deliver significant services. I believe that in the review of public administration that the Executive has indicated it will be undertaking, these are exactly the issues that will be considered. I hope that all Assembly Members will have input into that review. I entirely endorse the Member’s sentiments.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: In view of the many difficulties experienced by local entrepreneurs in trying to progress their business at a much quicker pace, does the Minister agree that effort should be made to cut out all unnecessary red tape? Perhaps a single agency, properly resourced, would contribute to that.

Sir Reg Empey: I take the point. I have answered previous questions about regulation and red tape. I have carried out a review of my Department, and, indeed, later this week I shall meet my officials again to examine whether particular regulations are absolutely necessary. Section by section, my Department will examine every piece of paper that has been generated to see whether it is essential.
The need for quicker responses is growing all the time, because of the changing nature of the businesses that we are being asked to support. The Assembly is committed to assisting the knowledge-based economy, and companies require quick responses — the old way is no longer the right way. I fully understand the Member’s sentiments.

Brussels Office for Northern Ireland (Department Representation)

Mr David Ford: 3. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment if he plans to have a presence in the Office to be established in Brussels by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
(AQO456/00)

Sir Reg Empey: I certainly expect to make use of the facilities provided by the Executive’s office in Brussels. The IDB is examining the feasibility of a permanent presence in the office.

Mr David Ford: I am disappointed to hear that the Minister is only considering an IDB presence. He has already referred to Northern Ireland’s untapped tourism potential — a matter that is within his Department’s remit. There are moves to promote inward investment, which is a necessary part of local economic development, so the Minister should say definitely that there will be a Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment presence in the Brussels office — not that he is just considering it.

Sir Reg Empey: Responsibility for establishing the office lies with the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. I have made representations on this subject, but it is for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to decide the shape and nature of the Brussels office.
When I was a director of the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe I encouraged moves to establish the office. I was also involved in designating the site that has now been obtained; it is an excellent location directly beside the European Parliament building. The former Northern Ireland Centre in Europe had some IDB support to enable it to hold functions and bring people in, and the centre was used for that purpose on a number of occasions. I hope and expect that the same will apply in this case, but it requires the agreement of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. We have some representation in Germany, and we have organised a campaign to raise our profile in mainland Europe for early next year.
I hope to give a positive response to the Member’s question in due course. I hope that that will be the outcome.

Mrs Joan Carson: The Minister told us that he was thinking about an IDB presence in Brussels. Does he agree that co-ordination would be enhanced greatly if the IDB office were to be located in the Executive Committee’s office?

Sir Reg Empey: I agree. It would make sense for IDB to be in that office, rather than in a separate one, and I have made representations on that basis. I also hope that it will be possible to reach whatever accommodation is required with the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe. Any Executive business on the European mainland should be carried out there, thus creating economies of scale. Anyone working in the office would have a status within the European system that would give them certain advantages. I am sure that you will appreciate that point, Madam Deputy Speaker. Anyone operating separately from and independently of that office would not have the same status, and that would diminish their role. I therefore fully support the Member’s views.

Electricity Prices

Mr David McClarty: 4. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to detail any discussions he has had with Northern Ireland Electricity plc regarding electricity price rises.
(AQO 474/00)

Sir Reg Empey: Following privatisation, responsibility for ensuring that electricity prices are cost-effective rests with the independent regulator. Northern Ireland Electricity plc (NIE) and the regulator issued a joint statement on 7 December on the introduction of a comprehensive package of measures aimed at mitigating the effects of the 9% increase in tariffs from January 2001.

Mr David McClarty: While accepting that the regulator, rather than the Minister, has direct responsibility in this area, I am sure that the Minister will accept that all of us in the Assembly have a duty to address the problem of fuel poverty, which leads to hundreds of deaths every year. Will he and his Colleagues in the Executive Committee undertake to persuade NIE to take account of those in fuel poverty before it hikes its prices again?

Sir Reg Empey: I am very conscious of the anger that was expressed in this House on the day that the increase was announced. You will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we were having a debate on that very day and the views of Members were expressed from all sides of this House with equal vehemence.
The Member for East Londonderry (Mr McClarty) will be aware that the question of fuel poverty rests with my Colleague, the Minister for Social Development. However, my Department and I are conscious of the overall position with regard to electricity prices in Northern Ireland, which is and remains totally unsatisfactory.
As Members know, part of the problem rests with the contracts that were entered into in 1992, and part rests with the costs of distribution and transmission — which remains an NIE matter. Another part, which is outside our control, relates to rising world fuel prices throughout the year 2000. A cocktail of issues is involved.
We are trying to address those issues through more open competition — 35% of the market will be open for competition by April 2001. That primarily affects the commercial sector. However, the reality is that we are continuing to seek a long-term viable solution to this energy problem which has haunted us for the last nine years. It is only when we try to look at the global picture that we can get a response. Every time that there is an increase we are increasing upon a very high base. That is the fundamental problem, and we are trying to address its core rather than take a piecemeal approach to it.

Mr Eddie McGrady: The Minister’s reply illustrated the problem and the extent to which he appears to be powerless. He pointed out very strongly that the Assembly had debated this matter and that there had been accord right round the Chamber. Surely it is important, after nine or 10 years of these impossible contracts, that we should in some way be able to buy ourselves out of the horrible situation where domestic electricity prices are 53% greater than in the Republic and industrial electricity prices are 75% greater. How can we compete in the industrial sector?
Can the Minister engage with the chief executive of NIE on two issues — first, on the prices which have been referred to; secondly, on shareholders taking less and passing more profits back to the consumer, given the total cartel situation? Will he look at legislation to give the independent regulator more power to address the gross distortions that have been mentioned in relation to transmission and distribution?
Does the Minister agree that we must take action rather than wait for something to happen?

Sir Reg Empey: I assure the hon Member that I am taking action. I am involved with the issue continually. However, he knows that contracts were entered into some years ago. They are legally binding contracts.
He talks about buying out, but we are talking about huge sums of money here — and I emphasise that. This is not small change; we are talking about hundreds of millions of pounds. I am trying to find a mechanism to deal with this that does not break the bank of the Department of Finance and Personnel. Consultants have been appointed, and a team is looking at this every few days with a view to finding a solution. I can assure the honMember, however, that it will not be easy.
At present, the regulator is engaged in a review of transmission costs. That is something over which he and Northern Ireland Electricity have some control. The differential between distribution costs here and those on the mainland is growing, and that is a worrying factor. I said in a previous debate, and I repeat now, that we are planning to introduce a new utilities Bill in the next session. That will look at the regulator’s powers. It is my intention to increase the regulator’s powers.

Mr Gerry McHugh: With regard to electricity charges, many people, particularly farmers, find it unsatisfactory that, in addition to paying for the metered units, they are being charged ground rents. Does the Minister not think that that is double-charging? In any other industry those charges would be incorporated in the per unit price. Perhaps that should also be considered with a view to reducing prices.

Sir Reg Empey: I did not catch the early part of the Member’s question, as the sound system failed.
With regard to fuel costs, the Member will know that the contracts that have been entered into with the generators have two parts. There is a standby cost, which is an availability payment that the generator gets for having the facility available to Northern Ireland Electricity. There is also the direct cost of the fuel that is necessary to generate the electricity. The contract therefore has a variable part in the sense that the fuel cost element of it is directly linked to market prices.
The problem with this is that they are starting from a high base. When the contracts were entered into, the extent to which generators could make efficiencies in the power stations was underestimated. The efficiencies that were made have resulted in there being large gaps between the cost of generation and the contracts themselves, and so the generators have very lucrative contracts under those circumstances. The only solution to that is contained in my reply to the honMember for South Down (MrMcGrady).
The other matters that the Member referred to — if I picked them up correctly — are primarily ones for the regulator to deal with. When we introduce a utilities Bill, which we will have the opportunity to discuss in great detail, it is my intention to get down to the actual cost detail. That is the position, for instance, in GreatBritain. Then there is the whole question of who and how. The consumer’s interest, of course, has to be represented in these matters, but that is a question for another day.

North/South Trade and Business Development Body

Dr Esmond Birnie: 5. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to make a statement on the budgetary allocation to the North-South Trade and Business Development Body.
(AQO 475/00)

Sir Reg Empey: The latest estimate of expenditure for the body shows a budget spend of £3·1million for the year ending 31March2001. That is made up of contributions of £1·06million from NorthernIreland and £2·132 million from the Republic of Ireland. The budget for 2001-02 is £8·63million sterling. That is made up of £2·8million from NorthernIreland and £5·75million from the Republic of Ireland.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I thank the Minister for his reply. We should all take special note of the relative proportions of contributions coming from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Can the Minister assure the House that NorthernIreland will make a fair proportional contribution to the total, rather than one which is excessive?

Sir Reg Empey: Yes. As the Member knows, the financing of these bodies varies. In one case, the Republic of Ireland’s contribution is eight times that of Northern Ireland. In this instance, a two-to-one basis was deemed appropriate. There are variations across the board, according to the work that is undertaken and the nature of the body.
Throughout, of course, the expenditures are subject to agreement and scrutiny by this House, and all Members have the opportunity at any point to examine the plans for the bodies. The details are available in the Assembly Library. After every meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council, the relevant Minister will be present to answer questions in the House. I am satisfied that Members will ensure that there is genuine accountability for the funds that are expended.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Given that Northern Ireland’s contribution to the budget will be about 33%, on what basis does the Minister judge that this kind of North/Southery creates good value for the people of Northern Ireland? Is he valuing it in terms of jobs promoted, and if so, can he tell us how many? Is he valuing it in terms of contacts made for new investments, and if so, can he tell us how many? Is it on a per head basis or per county basis? How exactly does he judge that a third of the cost is good value for the people of Northern Ireland?

Sir Reg Empey: The first objective is to increase trade. Clearly, the Republic has been one of our fastest- growing markets for a number of years. Looking at other examples in the EU where two countries have a land border, the relevant trade here is on a much smaller scale than is the case in France, Germany, Holland or Denmark. We are building supply chains. For instance, if there are companies on this island that could be trading with each other, there are opportunities for reducing supply chains, thereby reducing stockholdings. Goods could be sold on a just-in- time basis.
We will be looking at measurement. Output can be measured, in part, by the growth or otherwise of the amount of trade undertaken between companies here and companies in the Republic of Ireland. There will be networking opportunities, and we have already tried to promote some trade shows — we have had four so far — to try and get people to realise the potential of trading with those who are close to them. For example, Belfast City Council had "meet the buyer" days, which were intended to bring in people whom the council traded with, and people whom they did not trade with. New people came in and we generated new suppliers that we did not have before. The principle is exactly the same. One of the best methods of measurement is to see how trade actually increases, and we intend to do that.

Natural Gas (North-West)

Mr Sean Neeson: 6. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment what progress has been made on extending the natural gas pipeline to the north-west.
(AQO 458/00)

Sir Reg Empey: It is primarily for the private sector to initiate commercially viable projects to take gas to the north-west. The Director General for Gas Supply is currently considering a number of applications for licences to take natural gas to that part of the region.

Mr Sean Neeson: Does the Minister agree that there could be some linkage between the proposed development of a North/South natural gas pipeline and that to the north-west?
Does he also agree that proposals to impose a public service levy in the Republic of Ireland could be detrimental to both projects?

Sir Reg Empey: The public service levy could have a detrimental effect on the viability of the North/South pipeline, but I want to take this opportunity to make it clear that the Department’s policy is to see pipelines North/South and to the north-west as an integrated system. We do not want any part missing; that is our objective.
I must stress to the Member, however, that in the private sector, there has to be economic viability, and there must be people who are prepared to carry out the work and undertake the commercial risk that is involved. We are putting an enormous amount of effort into this project. I have been in regular contact with my opposite number in the Republic, Mrs O’Rourke, and it is my earnest hope that these matters will crystallise within the next few weeks with an outcome that Members of this House will be able to support.

Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment

Students: Republic of Ireland

Ms Mary Nelis: 1. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to detail the decrease in the number of students from the Republic of Ireland studying at universities and further education colleges in Northern Ireland over the past two years and if he will address this in the forthcoming review of student finance.
(AQO 449/00)

Dr Sean Farren: The number of students from the Republic studying at Northern Irish higher education institutions fell slightly from 3,846 in 1998-99 to 3,354 in 1999-2000. However, the number of Southern students studying in Northern Irish further education colleges increased from 1,617 to 1,845 in the same period. The Member and, indeed, others should view these figures in the context of demographic trends in the South, where the 17-to-18-year-old cohort is now in decline in overall numbers at an estimated rate of 14% over the period from 1997 to 2004 and at increasingly greater rates thereafter. The terms of reference for the review of student finance focused on Northern Irish domicilied students.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.
I thank the Minister for his response and his assurance that this is more to do with demographic trends than with the poor level of support from the funding system in the North. I tabled this question on behalf of students in the Republic who are receiving maximum maintenance grants of IR£1,775 but lose £440 when this is converted to sterling. Also, students from the Republic are not entitled —

Ms Jane Morrice: May we have your question, Mrs Nelis?

Ms Mary Nelis: Yes. Thank you.

Dr Sean Farren: I did not hear a question.

Ms Jane Morrice: Mrs Nelis, will you please put your question.

Ms Mary Nelis: I asked the Minister to give me some information on the decline in the number of students from the South of Ireland. He assures me that this has to do with demographic trends. My point is that I welcome that.

Mr John Fee: I note the reference in the question to the forthcoming review of student finance. In the light of the detailed work and consultations that the Minister is undertaking, can he give us any indication of when he will be in a position to publish the work done so far on the review?

Dr Sean Farren: As I have frequently told Members, I have been working fairly strenuously on this issue for a number of weeks, and we are now in the penultimate stage. With respect to my proposals, I think that the forthcoming budget statement will give some indication as to the overall context. I also like to think that I will be in a position to announce the broad framework of my proposals later this week.

Mr Alan McFarland: While accepting that students from other countries may enhance any academic institution, may I ask whether the Minister agrees that his first responsibility should be to ensure that students from Northern Ireland who wish to remain here for university- level education should have the right to do so? Furthermore, will the Minister undertake to increase the number of university places during his term of office?

Dr Sean Farren: The Member’s question relates to an issue that I have frequently referred to in this House. Significant increases have been planned throughout the period 1999-2004 in terms of higher and further education places in Northern Ireland. My first responsibility as Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment is to those students who are domiciled in Northern Ireland, just as my counterparts in neighbouring jurisdictions have a primary responsibility to the students domiciled in their jurisdictions.

Equal Community Initiative (Unemployed People)

Mr Joe Byrne: 2. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to outline the key features of the EQUAL Community Initiative and to indicate how the programme will benefit the unemployed.
(AQO 466/00)

Dr Sean Farren: The EQUAL Programme is a European Union initiative designed to test and promote new means of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in the workforce for the unemployed and those in work.
Projects must entail transnational co-operation with similar projects in other member states. In the light of local consultation, we propose that the Northern Ireland EQUAL Programme funding of £7 million throughout the period 2000-06 be directed at action under the two pillars of the European Employment Strategy; namely employability and equal opportunities. The benefit to the unemployed will be in the outcome of projects and that best practice in identifying inequality will be identified.

Mr Joe Byrne: Does the Minister agree that the greatest challenge will be to design a training programme that the long-term unemployed can really benefit from, particularly in those areas that have suffered long-term unemployment?

Dr Sean Farren: EQUAL Programme funding is not intended — as I think the Member’s question is suggesting — to go directly towards training programmes. The amount of funding, namely £7 million, designated over a six-year period, is rather small. However, the programme will identify best practice through a number of highly focused projects, which will deal with all issues of equality in the workplace, for those already in work and for the unemployed. There are a range of other programmes attracting greater levels of investment from my Department, which go directly to the training programmes that the Member has expressed concern about.

Ms Mary Nelis: Is the Minister satisfied with the consultation process involved in the programme, especially in terms of the community and voluntary sectors?

Dr Sean Farren: I am not aware of any concern regarding this matter. Written consultation with almost 150 interested bodies was undertaken in June and July of this year. In addition, a number of workshops were held for special interest groups to outline their views on the EQUAL Programme.
The findings indicated that the greatest support was for facilitating access and return to the labour market, which is in the employability pillar. Under the equal opportunities pillar, reducing gender gaps and supporting job desegregation was also well supported. These two areas are included in the draft proposal. Promoting lifelong learning and opening up the business creation process for all were also popular areas in which initiatives can be taken. However, these areas are already being dealt with by significant Government and other EU programmes.

Educational Guidance Service for Adults

Mr Roy Beggs: 3. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment what action he is taking to ensure equality of funding through the Educational Guidance Service for Adults to all constituencies.
(AQO477/00)

Dr Sean Farren: I trust that the Member is referring to the Educational Guidance Service for Adults (EGSA) and its role in allocating and administering funds under the European Peace Programme. EGSA is contracted by the Department to undertake this role. In allocating funding it is required to contribute to the peace objective of benefiting communities in an equitable and balanced way, focusing particularly on those areas and sections of the population most affected by conflict and suffering most deprivation. Its specific contribution is to direct support towards those with the greatest need for educational guidance, counselling services and learner support.

Mr Roy Beggs: It is interesting that my question follows a question on equality. Does the Minister agree that there is a continuing need for education in all constituencies? Is he aware of the £4·3million spent during PeaceI? Only £26,000 was spent in my constituency of East Antrim. If there is a continuing role for EGSA during PeaceII, can the Minister ensure that the funding will be spread more widely to areas of need throughout Northern Ireland in the future? I am sure he will agree that all constituencies have such areas.

Dr Sean Farren: I agree that there are areas of need. EGSA responds to need. However, EGSA allocates its resources not on a constituency basis but on the basis of need that has been identified. That is in accordance with a fundamental principle of the current Programme for Government — namely, Targeting Social Need and simultaneously ensuring equality of opportunity for all. If, however, the Member has specific concerns I will be only too pleased to receive the details and to discuss the situation with him.

Mr Eddie McGrady: The Minister will be aware that adult learning centres are located in large towns, in urban environments. This has the unfortunate effect of discriminating against those in rural areas, where such centres are not available. Twenty-four per cent of the working population make up what we call the low skills base, and this is largely centred in rural communities. In view of that, I propose the creation of a mobile literacy centre, which would enable the more widely distributed rural communities to take advantage of adult learning programmes. Will the Minister consider funding such a scheme?

Dr Sean Farren: The Minister is always ready to consider schemes which address particular needs bearing on the responsibilities of his Department. Certainly, if MrMcGrady has particular suggestions in mind, I am open to receiving them and giving them detailed consideration.
Part of the question may anticipate issues relating to initiatives that may be taken with regard to a University for Industry, and the learndirect centres that will be established under its auspices. These are beginning to take root right across the North. Using modern means of electronic communication in particular, and ensuring that people from all backgrounds — and particularly those with special needs — have access to these centres, we will be able to go a long way towards meeting some of the concerns lying behind the Member’s question.
These issues will recur with a later question.

University Places

Mr David Ford: 4. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to outline how Northern Ireland compares to other parts of the United Kingdom in relation to university places per head of population.
(AQO 463/00)

Dr Sean Farren: First, it is necessary to explain that the ratio of places to population is calculated using full-time undergraduate enrolments at higher education institutions in 1999-2000 against the 18-to-54-year-old population, and these figures are expressed per thousand of the population. The ratio of full-time undergraduate enrolments at Northern Irish higher education institutions per thousand of the population was just under 30 at 29·8. That compares to ratios of 32·4 in England, 40·3 in Wales and 42·3 in Scotland.

Mr David Ford: I thank the Minister for that information, which clearly shows that we are not just in deficit against England but in major deficit compared to Scotland and Wales in terms of the number of places in higher education. Has the Minister raised the issue with other UK Ministers, and what plans has he to expand undergraduate enrolments, perhaps through using the institutes of further and higher education to ensure that more graduate places can be supplied?

Dr Sean Farren: It is amazing how frequently the same issues come up under different questions. I addressed the issue in a previous question pertinent to the Member’s supplementary. I repeat myself for the Member’s benefit. As a result of the 1998 comprehensive spending review and my announcement earlier this year of Government support for the Springvale educational project, some 2,240 additional university places will be phased in between 1999 and 2004. Any further expansion will be subject to consideration of budget proposals. With respect to our further and higher education institutions — the FE colleges, as they are more commonly called — the Member may be aware of initiatives I am taking to expand enrolment in those institutions. In particular, as the experimental phase of the foundation degrees, which will be introduced next September, rolls out, we will see over the coming years an increased number of places made available.
Many students wish to pursue courses that are not currently available and unlikely ever to be made available in our existing institutions. Many Members will agree that we should afford students the opportunity to pursue studies across the water and not inhibit them by denying them access to the same levels of funding as those who attend institutions here enjoy.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom eolas a fháil i dtaca leis na tosca sna sé chondae is fiche.
Will the Minister outline how the Six Counties compare to the rest of Ireland in relation to university places per head of population? Has he explored or will he explore the feasibility of establishing a university in the north-west, across a number of cross-border sites, to meet future requirements and which may have the potential to generate EU funding?

Dr Sean Farren: There are many issues in that question. The Member is inviting me to stand up and unveil a new higher education policy in order to answer it.
Ach ar aon gcéad dul síos ba mhaith liom a rá go bhfuil suas le naoi gcéad ochtó is a hocht mac léinn ó Thuaisceart Éireann ag gabháil do chúrsaí sa Phoblacht agus go bhfuil, mar a thuigfidh an tUasal McElduff, a lán mac léinn ag teacht ón Deisceart go dtí an Tuaisceart mar a léirigh mé i mo fhreagra ar an gceist a chuir a chomrádaí, bean Uí Niallais. Tá comhoibriú ar siúl idir tuaisceart agus deisceart na tíre maidir le cúrsaí ardoideachais agus cuidím leis sin; agus tá sé sna pleananna s’agamsa maidir le cúrsaí trasteorann treisiú leis an méid comhoibrithe sin atá ar siúl. [Interruption]
A translation of the above paragraph, supplied by the Minister, is provided at the Annex to this Report (see page 36).

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. I was waiting for the translation.

Dr Sean Farren: As it was a supplementary question, I answered spontaneously, as I am quite capable of doing, in the Irish language, which, under Standing Orders, I am entitled to use.

Mr Danny Kennedy: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. As a courtesy to those Members who do not understand Irish, the Minister is invited to translate his words.

Dr Sean Farren: I expressed myself spontaneously. My concentration at this point is on the next question. If somebody has kept a record of what I said in Irish I will certainly give a translation. Those who are anxious to receive a response will — [Interruption]

Mr Peter Robinson: How can we ask supplementary questions if we do not understand the answer?

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Dr Sean Farren: After Question Time I will provide a written translation to all those who seek it.

Mr Roy Beggs: Is it appropriate for Ministers to answer in this way?

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Training and Employment Agency

Mrs Joan Carson: 5. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to make a statement on the Training and Employment Agency’s Next Steps agency status.
(AQO 478/00)

Dr Sean Farren: I will endeavour to answer in the best — dare I say it? — Queen’s English.
I refer the Member to my answer to Assembly question 293/00 on 13 November, when I announced that I had recently reviewed the agency’s status and concluded that its formal status as a Next Steps agency should be discontinued with immediate effect.

Mrs Joan Carson: Why has the Minister decided to do that now, ahead of a general review of the whole administration?

Dr Sean Farren: The agencies were created with the aim of allowing Ministers to set policy and gives officials responsibility for day-to-day operations, with greater freedom to manage, while being held publicly accountable for the quality of service. As a local Minister answerable to the public for all the Department’s activities, I judged it to be no longer appropriate to have 90% of my Department in a separate agency. I took that step in order to enhance the administrative arrangements within the Department. It prejudices neither the terms and conditions of the people working in the agency nor any accountability to the House.

Access to Employment: ‘Work-Life Balance’ Campaign

Mr John Fee: 6. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment how the ‘Work-Life Balance’ campaign will promote access to employment among parents and part-time workers.
(AQO 467/00)

Dr Sean Farren: The ‘Work-Life Balance’ campaign will encourage employers to look closely at the business benefits of flexible working. The campaign will help parents to return to work or remain in employment in a way which will enable them to balance their work with their other responsibilities. Members may have noted that I inaugurated this campaign last week, and detailed information about it can be obtained, on request, from my Department.

Mr John Fee: Will the Minister expand on what prompted this campaign and which factors influenced the Department’s thinking on this initiative?

Dr Sean Farren: The campaign itself has grown out of a number of previous initiatives within my Department, focusing on childcare needs and the development of what might be described as family-friendly policies in the workplace. It is designed to be much more inclusive, prompting employers to take account of many of the needs and interests of their workers, as opposed to focusing exclusively on the family needs of workers.
In many respects, it is likely to focus on the management of time, flexitime and part-time work. In this age, as the use of electronic means of communication in the workplace increases, we will have to consider whether it is necessary for all work to take place on the actual premises of an enterprise. It will consider a wide range of related issues, as well as workers’ outside interests, such as service to the community. It will ask how employers might make adjustments to take account of those factors and create more positive conditions for employees, particularly in enterprises. Obviously, over the next three years of the campaign, time will tell how effectively those broad objectives are being met.

Learndirect

Mr John Dallat: 7. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment what progress he has made on the delivery of learndirect in Northern Ireland and what plans he has to expand the service over the next year.
(AQO 469/00)

Mr John Dallat: Ceist uimhir seacht.

Dr Sean Farren: Tá mé sásta ceist uimhir a seacht a fhreagairt. I am pleased to answer question 7. I was able to remember that much Irish.
My Department has been working closely with the University for Industry to introduce learndirect to Northern Ireland. The Belfast call centre of the learndirect helpline has taken over 5,000 calls about learning opportunities since it was established early in the summer. The University for Industry has so far endorsed 16 learning centres, four of which have already been operating as test centres, which will be operational by April of next year. Further additions are likely after April.

Mr John Dallat: I welcome what the Minister has said. Can he go further and assure us that the learndirect service will be available in all parts of Northern Ireland and, in particular, in the rural areas?

Dr Sean Farren: Yes, I will give that general assurance. Members who closely follow adult education issues, in particular, will know that consortia are frequently being established in different areas across Northern Ireland, with the lead being taken by local further education colleges. These colleges are identifying, in their turn, various community organisations that might work in association with them to provide the services of learndirect centres, the establishment of which is an unfolding process. I trust that they will become available, as is necessary, across Northern Ireland.

Department Staff: New Deal Participants

Dr Esmond Birnie: 8. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment what is the percentage of New Deal participants on the staff of his Department compared with that for the United Kingdom Department for Education and Employment; and if he will make a statement.
(AQO 476/00)

Dr Sean Farren: The Department currently employs 0·5% of its total staff through New Deal. In the Department for Education and Employment, 2·2% of staff are employed through New Deal. The latter employs New Deal staff in two grades while my Department recruits to the administrative assistant grade only.

Dr Esmond Birnie: The Northern Ireland figure is considerably lower than that in London. Does the Minister not agree that we should attempt to get closer to that standard of 2·2%, which does not seem to be a very demanding target?

Dr Sean Farren: Comparisons are not always easy to make. The Member is comparing my Department with the Department of Education and Employment in London, which is very different in terms of scale and scope. The Training and Employment Agency has held recruitment competitions in Belfast, Derry and North Down, specifically for New Deal participants. The vacancies were circulated to New Deal personal advisers throughout Northern Ireland, who preselected and encouraged their clients to apply for the posts.
No upper limit was placed on the number of posts available for New Deal participants, who also retained the right to apply for posts in the Civil Service through open competition. We have certainly been making progress in trying to encourage a greater level of application with at least two posts filled by New Deal participants.

Further and Higher Education: Disability Rights

Mr Eugene McMenamin: 9. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment what progress he has made in implementing the recommendations of the Disability Rights Task Force report on further and higher education.
(AQO 464/00)

Dr Sean Farren: I am indeed committed to passing legislation to give effect to those Disability Rights Task Force recommendations on education which fall within the remit of my Department. The nature and timing of such legislation is under consideration.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: What would the main impact of any new legislation be?

Dr Sean Farren: The recommendations of the Disability Rights Task Force report cover areas such as consultation, statutory code of practice, rights of redress in cases of complaint, continuance of non-legislative measures, and the extension of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Overall, the main impact would be to extend comprehensive and enforceable rights to education for disabled people in Northern Ireland on the same basis as in the rest of the UK.

Ms Jane Morrice: Time is up. We must move on.

Mr Danny Kennedy: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister responded to the original question posed by MrFord, the Member for South Antrim, leading to a series of additional points including one raised by MrMcElduff in Irish, to which the Minister responded in Irish without any translation. Will you investigate whether that is in accordance with the procedures of the House? It is particularly important in the light of the fact that it meant that Members lacking the questionable benefit of an ability to speak Irish were unable to ask a further supplementary question.

Ms Jane Morrice: As you know, Standing Order 73 permits Members to speak in the language of their choice. That is clear. However, I have sympathy for those Members who are restricted in their contributions, especially during Question Time. Nonetheless, Standing Order 19(7) shows that there has been no breach of order, for the question was put in Irish and was answered in Irish. The answer to the supplementary question was therefore understood by the Member who asked it.

Mr Roy Beggs: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Do you consider that the Minister fulfilled his responsibility to the Assembly by answering in Irish when Members were not able to understand the response?

Ms Jane Morrice: The Speaker has ruled that according to Standing Orders the Member is entitled to speak in the language of his choice. As you are aware, the Minister has offered to provide Members with a written translation, and that is acceptable.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is one thing for the Minister to offer a translation after the event, but how were Members supposed to ask supplementary questions on the basis of an answer they could not understand?

Ms Jane Morrice: I refer the Member to Standing Order 19(7). The answer to the original question was given in English. The supplementary question was responded to in Irish. Standing Order 19(7) says that questions should be answered as clearly and as fully as possible and that they are not debatable. A supplementary question may be asked to elucidate an answer. Such supplementary questions shall be answered individually as they arise, and further supplementary questions may be asked only at the discretion of the Speaker.

Mr Alan McFarland: I want clarification. For some years now, a Member who speaks in a language other than English has followed with an English translation so that Members who do not speak the language of delivery may understand. Are you, Madam Deputy Speaker, saying that we are moving away from that understanding or tradition? I want to establish that this is a departure from the way in which the Assembly has been run for some years.

Ms Jane Morrice: There is no requirement in Standing Orders for a Member to provide a translation. The issue can be raised with the Business Committee, whose members, I am sure, have listened to today’s debate and will examine the matter.

Social Development

Purchase of Housing Executive Dwellings

Mr Derek Hussey: 1. asked the Minister for Social Development to explain current legislation which denies persons aged 60 or over the opportunity to purchase their own homes from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive; and if he will make a statement.
(AQO481/00)

Mr Conor Murphy: 4. asked the Minister for Social Development to detail any plans he has to review the criteria for purchasing Housing Executive dwellings.
(AQO 451/00)

Mr Maurice Morrow: I propose to take questions 1 and 4 together.
The design of the Housing Executive house sales scheme, rather than legislation, defines house sales policy. Under the scheme the over-60s can purchase general housing. Dwellings that are suitable for elderly people, such as single-storey or ground-floor accommodation, are not for sale if a tenant is over 60 years of age when the tenancy is first awarded. The purpose of this exclusion is to ensure that enough properties are available to meet the increasing demand for accommodation to meet the needs of elderly people. The Housing Executive has confirmed that a review of the scheme is planned and that it hopes to hold consultations with groups representing elderly people in the new year.

Mr Derek Hussey: I thank the Minister for his reply and welcome the review.
Can the Minister confirm that he has had representations from many local authorities on this issue? Does he not agree that persons of the age stated in the question have probably been in public housing for a considerable time, have probably paid the purchase value, and more, of their dwellings and, because of longer life expectancy, are likely to live in their homes for much longer than was originally anticipated? Should these people not have the right to own their houses?

Mr Maurice Morrow: I have some sympathy with the Member on this matter and assure him that the Housing Executive is currently in the process of conducting a lengthy review. In my opinion, there is some ambiguity, and we will look into the matter very closely.

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the news that a review is under way into this aspect of Housing Executive policy. Most Members will agree that the current practice is fairly arbitrary and discriminatory. Has this policy been tested against equality legislation requirements and human rights provisions? If not, will that happen during the review that he proposes to undertake?

Mr Maurice Morrow: I can confirm that it has been equality- tested. I am not prepared to accept that the practice is discriminatory, but I am prepared to state that it needs to be reviewed and that it will be reviewed.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I was glad to hear the Minister’s reply. He has already answered part of my supplementary question. In the past, supply and demand were often used as an excuse for abuse in this sector. Can the Minister assure the House that during this review good, clear policies will be proposed to counter arguments of abuse and that there are people in the Department and in the Executive who are well able to devise such policies to enable house sales to be made available to the over-60s?

Mr Maurice Morrow: The Member has stated that there is a degree of potential abuse. I agree, and for that reason we have a degree of ambiguity. However, there is enough expertise and knowledge to ensure that we can get the problem sorted out reasonably well and to most people’s satisfaction.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Does the Minister agree that there appears to be an inconsistency in the current policy? If someone under the age of 60 moves into a house that is deemed to be specifically for elderly people, he can purchase it. However, someone over the age of 60 who moves into the same house cannot. Can the Minister assure us that that aspect will be dealt with in the review? And when will the review be published?

Mr Maurice Morrow: The Member confirms the points we are trying to make. He shares my concern regarding the ambiguity. The review will take place early in the new year.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I am grateful to the Minister for that indication. Will the review look at the anomalies in inherited tenancies and in the ability to purchase houses? If legislation is required, will the Minister make a bid for legislative time in the House?

Mr Maurice Morrow: May I remind the Member that we have a new Housing Bill in the legislative timetable? It is a considerable Bill, with 200-plus clauses, but I can assure the Member that the matter will be addressed. We hope that by the time the review has taken place and the new Housing Bill has been debated, we will have come up with most of the answers.

Mixed Housing

Mr David Ford: 2. asked the Minister for Social Development why there is no mention of mixed housing in the draft Programme for Government.
(AQO 461/00)

Mr Maurice Morrow: People are entitled to choose where they wish to live. While there are many examples of areas in the private sector where people from different communities live side by side in harmony, the circumstances are such that the majority of applicants for social housing still choose to live where people from their particular community predominate. While the Programme for Government makes no mention of mixed housing, I hope that over time the "growing as a community" aspect of it will create an environment in which community background is not a factor in housing choice.

Mr David Ford: I thank the Minister for his response. The Programme for Government contains plenty of rhetoric about promoting community relations but little that is specific. Given that housing in urban areas — which include middle-class as well as working-class areas — is now more segregated than at any time for 30years, and given that many people who may wish to live in mixed areas find themselves forced into particular areas because of the present lack of mixed areas, is it not incumbent on the Minister to do something to promote mixed housing?

Mr Maurice Morrow: That is being looked at. I reassure the Member that the Housing Executive is currently considering a report from Queen’s University that deals with the potential for mixed housing in new social housing developments.

Town Centre Management

Mr Sean Neeson: 3. asked the Minister for Social Development what progress has been made towards a White Paper on town centre management.
(AQO 462/00)

Mr Maurice Morrow: The former Department of the Environment commissioned consultants to report on town centres to ensure that those outside Belfast and Londonderry were thriving and healthy. The consultants have now reported, and my Department has taken the lead on the report in consultation with other relevant Departments. Following widespread consultation earlier this year, a conference was held in Armagh on 26 October 2000 at which a wide range of interests focusing on key issues in the report was discussed. The report’s 27 recommendations, if accepted, would affect the policies of several Departments. An interdepartmental steering group is overseeing the work of co-ordinating a response to the recommendations. It is anticipated that relevant Ministers will receive the recommendations by March 2001, when I will decide whether the Assembly or other interests need to be consulted and, if so, when and in what way.

Mr Sean Neeson: I thank the Minister for his answer and for the fact that he recognises interdepartmental responsibilities in this matter. What plans does he have to work with his colleague the Minister of the Environment to impose a moratorium on out-of-town retail developments in order to protect the fabric of town centres in Northern Ireland?

Mr Maurice Morrow: It was recognised from the outset that recommendations in the town centre reinvigoration report might need to be reflected in the regional strategic framework and other government policies. For that reason, an interdepartmental steering group, comprising officials responsible for planning and transport, was established to take these matters forward in an integrated manner.

Mr Roy Beggs: What provision has been made in the draft budget to promote the reinvigoration of town centres?

Mr Maurice Morrow: That is a difficult question, as we have not yet had the final submission. Once we have been made aware of that, we will examine budgetary figures. I will write to the Member with a more detailed answer.

Availability of Good-Quality, Affordable Housing

Sir John Gorman: 5. asked the Minister for Social Development what steps he is taking to ensure that good-quality, affordable housing is available to all in Northern Ireland.
(AQO 479/00)

Mr Maurice Morrow: I am taking a number of steps in that regard in this financial year. My Department has allocated approximately £60 million in grants to housing associations. Along with the private finance that they lever in, that money will enable them to provide approximately 1,400 good-quality houses for rent. In addition, over £5 million has been allocated to the Northern Ireland Co-Ownership Housing Association. That will enable around 560 participants on low incomes to become homeowners.

Sir John Gorman: Has the Minister taken into account the large amount of affordable social housing that is going to be required, along with the 8,500 private homes which are calculated as being required in the regional plan? Will he consider taking steps in the forthcoming Housing Bill to emulate the situation in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland? In those places, when planning permission for a sizeable development of land for housing purposes is asked for, part of the land is allocated for social or affordable housing. That is the rule enforced in the Republic of Ireland. It might assist people in the Province — particularly young people who cannot afford a mortgage — to be able to have such housing. If the Minister would like further information on the Republic’s actions, I would be happy to give it to him.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I do not want to sound unconcerned, but I cannot answer for the Republic of Ireland. There are times, perhaps, when they have difficulty answering for themselves. I am lost as to what the Member’s real question is. Is he asking me to consider a mixture of social and private housing, or is he asking me to consider prices in relation to socal and private housing? I would like clarification.

Sir John Gorman: I am happy to clarify. In planning matters, there is discordance between the Department for Social Development and the Department of the Environment. That should be attended to, because otherwise developers will build large estates for private purposes on some of the best sites in Northern Ireland. If this were a requirement before planning permission was given, affordable housing might be made available.

Ms Jane Morrice: As I understand it, the question is: should a developer be required to set aside a parcel of land for social housing?

Mr Maurice Morrow: I am unable to answer that question on the hoof. I will look at it and come back to the Member and anyone else who is interested in the answer. That is the best I can offer at this stage.

Mr John Dallat: Is the Minister telling the House that he is unaware of the issue of social housing, which has been under discussion for at least two years? Many elected representatives believed that Government plans to deal with social housing would be developed. [Interruption]
I am speaking to the Minister, not to Mr Peter Robinson.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I might digress a little to inform Mr Dallat that I have been interested in housing for 30 years — long before I entered the Assembly. As a district councillor, I have represented Housing Executive tenants for 27 years, and I have worked as an estate agent for 29 years. I am quite aware of the housing situation in Northern Ireland. I do not claim to know it all, by any means, and perhaps not even half as much as the Member knows. However, I certainly claim to have some knowledge of housing in Northern Ireland. I have great concern for social housing and even greater concern for house prices.
As the Minister responsible for housing, I am most anxious to ensure that everyone in every Northern Ireland family has a good roof over his head. I am already on record as having stated my belief that a good home is not a privilege but a fundamental right. I am working hard towards achieving low-priced housing — if that is how one chooses to term it — which is within everyone’s grasp. I hope that that reassures the Member.

Local Advice Services

Mr Eddie McGrady: 6. asked the Minister for Social Development what steps he is taking to enhance the provision of advice services at local level.
(AQO 446/00)

Mr Maurice Morrow: Arrangements for the support of local advice services were introduced in April 1995, when lead responsibility for advice services provision in Northern Ireland was allocated to district councils as part of their wider responsibilities under the community services programme. I shall shortly be considering proposals for the future of the community services programme, including local advice services, as a result of the recently completed major review of the programme.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I should like to direct the Minister’s attention to the serious underfunding of citizens advice bureaux in almost all district council areas, with his Department now contributing an average of only £15,000 per year to each. Is he aware that for the last 10 years there has been a moratorium on increases by the former Department of Education — something that presents enormous difficulties to advice centres and district councils? In view of the fact that the Social Security Agency has received a budget increase of 7%, will he consider unfreezing this moratorium on the rate support grant directly distributed by district councils to advice centres? After all, the advice centres and the councils are now supporting citizens advice bureaux to a greater extent than the Department itself.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I could answer this question in four parts. The Social Security Agency has implemented an information, advice and assistance policy aimed at providing a more comprehensive advice service to its customers. This was communicated to customers through the new customer charter, which I launched on 11 October. The charter was widely publicised in the media and gives a clear commitment to customers that staff will provide information and advice about all benefits, as well as assisting with form completion.

Mr Eddie McGrady: The advice centres?

Mr Maurice Morrow: I shall come to them in a second.
This service is available in all front offices. As a result, I sincerely hope and believe that the CAB’s workload will be reduced. If information and advice are to be given through SSA offices, it must follow that fewer people will be going to the Citizens’ Advice Bureau (CAB). Having said that, I also wish to express my appreciation of the CAB’s work. It does an excellent job across the Province. I recognise that, along with other groups, the CAB has had a moratorium on funds, but that is the position. We hope that after the announcement of 11 October its workload will be reduced.

Town Centre Management

Mr Kieran McCarthy: 7. asked the Minister for Social Development what plans he has to provide central funding for town centre management partnerships.
(AQO 460/00)

Mr Maurice Morrow: The consultants’ report on town centre reinvigoration recommends that town centre management, as an approach, should be promoted as an essential pre- requisite to funding being provided for town centre schemes.
My Department believes that town centre management can play an important part in improving town centres throughout Northern Ireland and is supportive of this recommendation. My Department is therefore exploring the possibility of bidding for funding for town centre management in the next tranche of European Union funding. I will let the Member know the outcome.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: Does the Minister agree that it would be unfair if his Department, on one hand, were to encourage town centre management partnerships and, on the other, were to refuse to fund these, leaving them, as his Colleagues have done, to be funded entirely by local councils?

Mr Maurice Morrow: I take the point that the Member is trying to make. There would not be much point in our initiating town centre management strategies and then walking away after bringing them to a certain stage. Once we have the report we will be looking at all aspects, and I will report to the Assembly on the particular matter. It is a valid point — there would not be much point if there were nothing available to the towns to get on with the schemes.

Mr Derek Hussey: Like others, I welcome the concept of town centre management and all that it can do, such as co-operation with local business, local authorities, and so on. Can the Minister state briefly when a town is a town or a large village or a small town? What is the definition of "town"?

Mr Maurice Morrow: I do not know whether the Member is asking me whether Castlederg is a town, village or city, and I will not attempt to answer that question at this stage. If the Member can be patient, we will bring forward this report, which he will find enlightening. It will be clearly defined in that report exactly what is a town and what size of population will deem it to be such. I will ensure that Mr Hussey gets a copy of the report, and he will clearly see whether Castlederg and similar towns are included in that definition.

Community and Voluntary Sector: Compact with Government

Mr Billy Hutchinson: 8. asked the Minister for Social Development to detail the progress made on the compact between Government and the community and voluntary sector in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
(AQO 455/00)

Mr Maurice Morrow: The compact was published in December 1998, and the Assembly endorsed it in February 2000. It gave a number of commitments to actions that would support and lend substance to the values and principles outlined in it, including the preparation of a supporting document, namely the strategy. This sets out how the Government will put the principles and commitments in the compact into practice and keep it under review. The strategy will be the yardstick against which performance on the implementation impact of the compact will be measured. The strategy is now well advanced, and a draft should be ready for public consultation by the summer.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: Will the Minister detail what he means by the term "the public"? I am concerned, for I am aware that a number of area partnerships and others are asking questions, saying that they have not had many details. I ask the Minister to ensure that any consultation is wide.

Mr Maurice Morrow: The compact applies to the relationship between the voluntary and community sector and government, both central and local. That includes Departments, departmental public bodies, statutory agencies and district councils. I hope that the Member will agree that the net has been thrown fairly wide.

Housing Executive Tenants: Debt

Mr Edwin Poots: 9. asked the Minister for Social Development to detail the debt of Housing Executive tenants for each of the last three years.
(AQO 453/00)

Mr Maurice Morrow: Existing tenant debt in the last three years is as follows: for 1997-98, £10·8 million; for 1998-99, £11·5 million; for 1999-2000, £12·3 million.

Mr Edwin Poots: I thank the Minister for his response. I am not surprised that it indicates an upward trend. Will the Minister take that into account when determining the new rent and rates rise that will be levied on those who rent Housing Executive properties? It is evident that as more and more people are now in low-paid employment, they have more difficulties in paying their Housing Executive debt.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I have listened carefully to the advice given to me. I can assure the Member that it will be so. I also want to reassure the Assembly in relation to rent arrears. This is not something that the Housing Executive takes lightly. It has a very robust policy for gathering in rent arrears. It is something that I do not take lightly either. There should be a determined effort to ensure that all tenants pay their rents; it is a tragedy when only some are actually doing so. One half pays, and the other half lets it. I do not think it is as bad as that, but I am concerned about the level of rent arrears. It is a matter that we will be considering seriously. I can assure the Member that it will not be lightly treated by any means.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. Will he provide the Assembly with a detailed analysis of the debt that is outstanding on a regional basis and, indeed, on a local district office basis so that Members of this House and the general public can see where the debt is?

Mr Maurice Morrow: I do not have a problem with doing that if is possible to do so. If it is possible, the Department will provide that information, for it is not trying to hide away from this issue. It is a good question, and I will certainly address it. I will write to the Member with all the details that he has asked for.

Housing Executive: North Belfast Strategy

Mr Alban Maginness: 10. asked the Minister for Social Development to detail what priority he has given in the Department’s draft budget 2001-02 for a start to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive’s Strategy for North Belfast.
(AQO 470/00)

Mr Maurice Morrow: I have already publicly stated my support for the housing strategy for north Belfast, which is a programme designed by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to meet a particular need in that part of the city. The Housing Executive has a duty to tackle north Belfast’s chronic housing need aggressively, to stamp out bad housing and cut down on urgent housing need. I am determined that that will be done with energy and creativity. This is an operational matter, however, and, that being the case, the timing and allocation of funding will be the responsibility of the Housing Executive.

Mr Alban Maginness: I want to express disappointment with the Minister’s reply. He has indicated that he supports the Housing Executive’s north Belfast strategy. However, he fails to produce the means whereby this strategy can be fully implemented. As he knows well, north Belfast has the worst housing in all of Belfast — indeed, throughout Northern Ireland. The Minister’s reply is therefore somewhat laissez-faire in its thrust and lacking in the commitment that one would expect from a Minister.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I share the Member’s concern and his disappointment, but I want to re-emphasise that a bid of £4·1 million was submitted. Unfortunately, the Executive does not share the concerns of MrMaginness and myself. Its members do not give this the same priority as we do. I regret that, and I have no doubt that he regrets it.
It would be better, however, if he were to ride in behind my efforts rather than trying to throw roadblocks in the way. I do not want to misrepresent him — normally he is a very genuine individual — but Mr Maginness should accept that the best effort was made. Unfortunately, the Executive did not interpret it as such.
I will value the Member’s support in the future in making any representations that he can. If he wants to come and speak to me on this issue, I am quite ready and willing to listen.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: Does the Minister think it would be useful for the six North Belfast MLAs to meet with him and then approach the Executive on that basis?

Mr Maurice Morrow: Mr Hutchinson is a member of the Committee for Social Development. He knows the number of times I have attended Committee meetings, and he is aware that I have discussed this matter with him and his Colleagues. He can gauge whether I am sincere. I cannot force him to make up his mind on that. However, I remind him that there are a number of Members on that Committee and that they have ample opportunity to make representations to me through the Committee. I can assure him, his Colleagues and the House that I want to see the north Belfast strategy go forth, irrespective of what Members may think of my political views.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Can the Minister remind us how many SDLP Ministers are on the Executive, which refused the bid for money for north Belfast?

Ms Jane Morrice: Time is up.

Mr Gregory Campbell: The answer is three.

Ms Jane Morrice: Perhaps the Minister will provide a written response to that question.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)
Private Notice Question

Coats Barbour: Job Losses

Mr Ivan Davis: asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment what has been done to avoid the impending job losses at Coats Barbour, Lisburn.

Sir Reg Empey: The recent announcement of proposed redundancies at Barbour Campbell Threads is regrettable. However, this was a commercial decision taken by the company because of global market conditions.

Mr Ivan Davis: This company is a mainstay in the Lisburn area, and the consequences of 60 job losses at this time of the year, or indeed at any time of the year, cannot be overstated. These job losses will take about £1 million out of the local economy — spending power that will be lost to local business, which will have to grapple with the knock-on effects. It is conceivable that some businesses may be forced to re-examine staffing levels to take account of the loss of these manufacturing jobs. In essence, we are not just talking about 60 jobs, because more may depend on this long-established company’s subcontracts and the money it injects into the Lisburn economy.
Like many other companies in this sector, Barbour Campbell Threads is not immune to the volatility of world markets and the pressure on margins caused by cheap imports. I understand that little can be done on the home front to create a level playing field for this sector. However, I ask the Minister to explore the potential of raising this matter in a European context. In addition, can the Department’s agencies, particularly the IDB and LEDU, undertake a comprehensive review of textiles to determine what can be done to protect remaining jobs and safeguard some of the Province’s older companies?

Sir Reg Empey: I deeply regret the fact that a consultation process has begun with the trade unions. It may be that some redundancies will take place in the first quarter of 2001, with the remainder towards the end of 2001. However, I want to make a couple of points. First, while the company advised the IDB of the impending job losses, it did not seek financial assistance. I understand that the decision reflects on the inability of the Hilden operation to match the cost of synthetic thread products, which can be sourced more cost-effectively from Asia.
I also understand that they have a strategy of focusing on speciality products and that the company is receiving Industrial Research and Technology Unit assistance on a number of technical matters. These include a method of bonding and sewing threads using an innovative curing system rather than the current solvent-based system.
My Department initiated a review last June. We appointed Kurt Salmon Associates as consultants. The report has been completed, although I have not yet received it. However, I hope to make a statement about it after the recess because a number of Members have asked me questions on those matters and have great concerns. However, what can be done is being done.
Ironically, in the next few days when certain figures will be released, Members will find that there is still a degree of buoyancy in certain sectors of the textile market. However, in this particular case the company has taken a strategic decision to protect its position, bearing in mind that it is a substantial company currently employing some 300 people.
I understand and sympathise with the Member’s concerns that such a large concentration of job losses in the Lagan Valley area has a knock-on effect. However, I believe that the company has made the strategic decision to specialise in areas where it will not be facing the wall of Asian competition with its low-wage economies, as it is very hard to compete under those circumstances.

Mr Seamus Close: I thank the Minister for his reply to my Colleague from Lagan Valley, Mr Davis. I wish to place on record my and my constituents’ concern at such a potential loss of jobs at such a historic company — one which has its roots deeply imbedded in the Lagan Valley constituency.
Is the Minister aware that rumours have been circulating for a protracted period about the firm? Will he ensure that there is no asset-stripping in the concern? Will he also ensure that all the grants that have been provided — for example, through IDB — are secured and that there will be no attempt to remove machinery, et cetera, from the country?

Sir Reg Empey: First, I will say to the Member for Lagan Valley that the company has made no request for financial assistance. The company took a strategic decision, and this announcement was made. To be precise, Hilden is to become a centre of excellence for speciality threads to be used in the manufacture of car airbags, seatbelts, sportswear and upholstery products.
With regard to what the Member describes as asset- stripping, IDB, of course, has rules about how assets are treated if those assets are currently in receipt of IDB resources. That may not be the case in this matter, but we are acutely aware of the sensitivities of these matters. Any company that has an agreement with us has to honour its terms and conditions. It is a legally enforceable document — and I draw that to your attention, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I stress that the company will remain a significant employer in the Lagan Valley area. It has a clear strategy as to what it wants to do. It was its decision and the company has made no recourse to us for assistance.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I add my dismay to that of my two Lagan Valley Colleagues concerning the number of job losses at Barbour Campbell Threads. One of the issues raised by many of its workers was the lack of consultation. I am glad to hear that consultation started in June, yet well over a year ago I spoke to some people from IDB about concerns that had been raised. One of the biggest issues was the lack of consultation between the workforce and the management.
Also, machinery was removed from Barbour Campbell Threads and sent to Hungary, and CoatsViyella has another venture in Asia. Is the streamlining a bit more sinister than we thought? In the past, it was suggested that Lisburn would be a centre of excellence, but how many people will be employed in it? Very few, compared to the current numbers.
The work force at Barbour Campbell Threads is a tightly knit community, and two or three people in the same family could lose their jobs. The impact on the quality of life for many in that community will be horrendous. Many of those people have been kept waiting to hear when they will lose their jobs; they could not find other employment, because they were not told when they would be made redundant. If they wished to take redundancy, the company would not let them. People have been badly put upon, and the Minister should take that into consideration.

Sir Reg Empey: I sympathise with the people who find themselves in those circumstances. It is not a unique situation; people elsewhere, particularly in the textiles industry, have experienced exactly those problems. However, the Member must be aware that consultation with trade unions is a matter for the company and the unions.
I appreciate the local circumstances and that individual families can be disproportionately affected, but I must point out two things. First, there is the whole question of outsourcing, which is the process by which companies based in the UnitedKingdom carry out part of their functions overseas. That will be a growing problem. Some indigenous NorthernIrish companies are now, as a matter of policy, outsourcing in regions such as SriLanka, northAfrica and SouthAfrica. That will not change, and we will be confronted with that in a range of situations. We will have to return to the issue because, sooner or later, someone will seek assistance for outsourcing. That will be a big issue for the House.
We must also consider the general position in the Lagan Valley. There are 41IDB client companies in the LaganValley area, employing almost 5,000people. I shall put that in context: selective financial assistance of £80 million has been made available in support of projects worth some £240million in the past five years. There has been substantial IDB activity in the constituency. Even in the worst case scenario, Barbour Campbell Threads will still have 230-240employees and will still be a substantial force. They have the technical ability to turn the plant into a centre of excellence, as has been discussed for some time. Funding has been made available, and the Industrial Research and Technology Unit has assisted them with the technical aspects. We are trying to take the necessary steps to protect the long-term future of the company.

Mr Edwin Poots: The size of the company makes this a serious blow to the local economy. What investment has IDB made in Barbour Campbell Threads? Does the Minister know how many jobs will be available when the new centre of excellence is created?

Sir Reg Empey: I shall write to the Member with details of the assistance that has been available for the long term. I repeat that we were not asked for anything additional.
It will remain a significant player in the constituency. Also, CoatsViyella has decided to sell certain parts of its businesses, and a number of Northern Ireland companies in its clothing and household furnishing sector are for sale at the present time. The thread business is going to remain the core business for CoatsViyella. I cannot say how much long-term funding was put into it, but I do know that in 1997 a letter of offer was issued to Barbour Campbell Threads in the sum of £1·4 million. To date, £733,000 has been drawn on the basis of that letter of offer, so there is an ongoing arrangement, which I assume is linked to either sales or employment targets. It might be better if I were to write to the Member with the precise details, but that is the statistical situation at this stage.
Question proposed:
That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Deputy Speaker]

Toome Bypass

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I brought the issue of the Toome bypass to the attention of the House by way of an Adjournment debate because of the anger and frustration felt by people west of the Bann at the Minister’s shock announcement that this project was once more going to be put in suspension, delayed or cancelled.
It may be that the Minister is playing hardball with the Executive or with the Minister of Finance and Personnel, or it may be that he is playing politics with a very critical, strategic issue around the Toome bypass. If he is playing hardball with the Executive or with the Minister of Finance, knowing that this is a vexatious issue that has caused hardship for a great number of years, he may feel that by creating a lot of controversy around his remarks he can force the hand of the Minister to give him the extra moneys that he is looking for.
I suggest that the Minister would have had a more responsible and responsive position had he carried on this debate in the Executive, and not outside the Executive, and that the place to decide these issues of urgency, of hardship and of crisis is in the Executive and not outside it.
It is barely a year since the Minister’s predecessor, Peter Robinson, arrived in Toome, to a fanfare of TV, newspaper and Department of the Environment personnel coverage, to launch, in a blaze of publicity, the Toome bypass project. We, along with the assembled gathering, were told that the money had been secured. We were told that construction would commence by the end of 2001. It may be that it will commence towards the end of next year, but we do not know. We are waiting for the present Minister to indicate, perhaps in a more realistic way, what his intentions are regarding an issue that is critical, that has caused hardship, and that we know from the reduction of the acute services in the Mid-Ulster Hospital could cause death itself.
Some 21,000 vehicles — a conservative estimate — travel this road daily, and some 5,000 people in construction, education and the health services travel from areas west of the Bann to Belfast and back.
Each day we have two-mile-long queues, and average speeds are seven to 14miles per hour. This occurs for one or two hours in the morning and for one or two hours in the afternoon.
These are critical issues for people who live west of the Bann. The road infrastructure west of the Bann is bad enough as it is. A bypass around Magherafelt has been awaited for many years. We are disadvantaged, yet we are being further disadvantaged by this Minister. He lives west of the Bann, and one would think that he would have a vested interest in ensuring that the Toome bypass be put in place quickly. Perhaps, politically, the Minister would be chopping off his nose to spite his face — I do not know.
I want Members to consider the critical issue of health and the Health Service west of the Bann, where people currently have to travel from Magherafelt to Antrim in emergencies. Travelling times have increased. From Swatragh to Magherafelt took 19minutes. The time taken from Swatragh to Antrim rises to 36minutes. Travelling time from Draperstown or Ballynascreen has risen from 13minutes to 36minutes. The small towns of Tobermore, Bellaghy, Moneymore, Castledawson and Magherafelt have all had extra travelling time imposed upon them, just on the one simple issue of health. They are also bedevilled by the traffic congestion that ensues on the way.
Increased travelling times to Antrim will increase mortality rates. That is borne out by the Ambulance Service. It tells us that in cases of acute pain — such as when people are in a traffic accident or are having a heart attack — people’s lives are in danger unless they are dealt with inside of eightminutes. We now have a situation where it takes 16-36minutes for people to get from west of the Bann to a hospital in Antrim — principally because of the difficult situation caused by the absence of a Toome bypass.
We can play politics with this issue, and it would be the simplest thing in the world to do so. However, I contend that this is too important an issue, too critical an issue, and an issue that has been outstanding for too many years, to play politics with. It is an issue that is economically damaging. We talk about the price of fuel, but if people are sitting in a traffic queue for an hour in the morning and an hour in the evening, just imagine how much fuel is being used up. That is apart from the damage that is being done to the environment. It all mounts up over time.
I notice MrPeter Robinson talking through his hand as usual. Perhaps he will take his hand away from his jaw and let us know what he is trying to say — he being the Minister who promised this bypass less than a year ago. However, the DUP is playing its usual funny little games.
We could play politics with this issue, and we could develop it into a political debate. Unfortunately, it is all the people west of the Bann who are suffering as a result of this delay at Toome. It is all the people — DUP, UUP, PUP, Sinn Féin and SDLP — who are affected, damaged and hurt by this delay. It is a daily delay at Toome. It occurs sevendays a week, not just on the five working days.
The Minister allocated £460 million in the recent Budget. In detail, where is this money going? Can he tell us of an area in the North of Ireland — in the Six Counties — that is in greater need of this money than the area affected by the Toome bypass? Can he detail exactly where and into what areas that £460 million is going? Can he tell us that he is not playing politics with the Toome bypass but is committed to alleviating the hardship that is being inflicted on a daily, weekly, monthly and yearly basis on the people west of the Bann?

Mr Billy Armstrong: I welcome the opportunity to debate this matter. However, it is unfortunate that we must be here today. I must express my exasperation at Sinn Féin/IRA, who have the nerve to complain about the starting of road improvements on the Toome bypass. It is somewhat two-faced for a member of Sinn Féin to raise this issue. Terrorists have brought great expense to the Province over the past 30 years. Cash has been pumped into Northern Ireland to fix and to renovate after the work of the terrorist army linked to Sinn Féin.

Mr John Kelly: On a point of order, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Are we discussing the Toome bypass, or do we want to get into a debate about paramilitary organisations?

Sir John Gorman: I am listening carefully to what the Member is saying. I am sure that he will return to the subject in question.

Mr Billy Armstrong: This has further led to the lack of real investment in any future development in Northern Ireland. These people complain that they are treated as second-class citizens. Surely we are being treated as second- class citizens at the hands of these terrorists, who have prevented any real development in Northern Ireland. How can Sinn Féin have the face to ask for more money in Northern Ireland when, in the past, they have easily allowed Government money to go up in smoke?
I am surprised to hear the DUP Minister for Regional Development announce that his Department has difficulty in funding major work. In January 2000 Gregory Campbell’s predecessor, Peter Robinson, announced at a press conference in the O’Neill Arms Hotel in Toomebridge that the Toome bypass would go ahead. Mr Robinson gave a commitment to the people of Northern Ireland, claiming that he would listen to the people and explain why decisions are taken. Mr Robinson said that construction would start in late 2001 and would take approximately 18 months to complete. The finance was to be provided by the 1998 Chancellor’s Initiative package.
Mr Robinson described the Toome bypass as a major development that would help the people of Northern Ireland and relieve traffic congestion. Did Mr Robinson not plan ahead at the time? Why was there so much hype, if there was not enough money to pay for the bypass? Could Mr Robinson not have told us the state of his Department’s finances at the time, rather than indulging his party in a blaze of publicity?
It is now apparent that a major challenge to the policy has taken place, both at departmental level and with the DUP Minister. Both Mr Robinson and Mr Campbell are prepared to engage in political stunts rather than address the real needs of the people of Northern Ireland.
The Toome bypass is absolutely necessary to link industry with the east and the west, whether it is stock in transit, people travelling to and from work, or sightseers on a tour of our beautiful Province. Direct rule has prevented the direction of finance to the most needy areas of Northern Ireland. Now, with the devolved Administration, we have the opportunity to prioritise as we, the people of Northern Ireland, see fit. Toome is a significant bottleneck, a narrow bridge over a river flowing north from Lough Neagh. In modern life, people do not want to be delayed. Aeroplanes or boats do not wait for customers if they are stuck in traffic congestion.
Excess pressure is put on commuters and frustration arises. Over the years, Mid Ulster has been socially and economically neglected, and it seems to have been considered unimportant in many regards, including road infrastructure. Being centrally situated, the area is ideal for businesses targeting the whole of Northern Ireland. Fifty-four of the top 1,000 Northern Irish businesses are situated in the Sperrin area. If Mid Ulster were more accessible, industry would be more attracted to set up in the region, thus producing more jobs and encouraging people to live there instead of in the city.
Unemployment rates in the area are significantly higher than the Northern Irish average. There is a higher proportion of self-employed men and women in Mid Ulster than in Northern Ireland as a whole. There are a huge number of farmers in Mid Ulster, and we all know the problems they face at this time. Unfortunately, with the present depression in agriculture, it is becoming more commonplace that farming alone cannot bring in sufficient income for a satisfactory standard of living. The result is increased commuter traffic.
A bypass at Toome is essential for the future of the region west of the Bann. We must make Mid Ulster more accessible, for otherwise our efforts to promote the area for tourism and other industries will be wasted. The people of Mid Ulster want to share the benefits and attractions of our area with everyone across Northern Ireland and beyond. The bridge at Toome will carry traffic in both directions and will therefore benefit everyone.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Deputy Speaker, I will take your advice and be very brief. I understand that there are several Members waiting to speak, and that the Minister will want to respond. All those who have spoken said that they did not want to play politics with this issue. What did they do then? They played politics with it.
I have a special interest — if not a vested interest — in this subject. I am very proud to have been born in the village of Toome. I attended primary school there — they have not yet put up a blue plaque on the wall, but perhaps they will. I represent Toome on Antrim Borough Council.
This debate is not new. Since first elected to Antrim Borough Council, I have met with every direct rule Minister to present this case. No one needs to be told that this road joins the two major cities of Northern Ireland and several surveys have been carried out on traffic density. Approximately 20,000 vehicles pass through the village every day and it is estimated that the number will increase to approximately 30,000 by 2017. Where was the planning during the decades of direct rule that did not envisage this level of traffic density on this main road bridging our two major cities? With the ending of direct rule, and the start of our own Assembly, the people of the area — and of the whole of the north-west — had very high expectations that this programme would receive a high priority in government.
I want to pay tribute to my colleagues on Antrim Borough Council who, for decades, have been pressing successive Ministers for this bypass. One of my colleagues on the council can affirm that even during the latter part of the 1980s — when it was not politic for local government Ministers to be meeting with Ministers of State to discuss issues such as the Toome bypass — Antrim councillors were regularly meeting with Ministers to press for this development. The council has also worked very closely with the local community group in Toome, Tidal, in providing finance for a variety of surveys on the density of traffic going through Toome and the environmental impact on the village.
Any delay in this programme will be disastrous for the people of the village and will have wider implications for the economy of the north-west as a whole. For years, the people of Toome have had to suffer the impact of traffic congestion, pollution, noise and delays. In addition, there is now what is called "rat running" — cars taking short-cuts through the small rural areas surrounding Toome village, with the attendant destruction of the rural and farming communities in the area.
All these issues impact on the people of Toome and mean a poorer quality of life for them. They also have a dramatic impact on economic and tourist development. Environmental plans and the commencement of a new industrial development strategy for the area are badly needed if unemployment levels are to be reduced.
We need the road for many reasons. We need it for the people of Toome, for economic growth in the whole of the north-west and to improve road safety. We need it, as MrJ Kelly said, because of the importance of acute services and the fact that the Ambulance Service has to move between the Mid-Ulster Hospital and the new Antrim Area Hospital. We need speedy access to our ports and airport, and to provide tourism, not only locally, but throughout Northern Ireland.
I do not subscribe to the view of one of Mr Kelly’s colleagues, who wrote to my local paper recently to say that the Minister’s decision not to proceed with the bypass was sectarian. I do not believe that there is some sad little civil servant sitting in a car in Toome counting the number of Catholic cars and Protestant cars going through the village. I would, however, impress on the Minister the need to proceed with this project for the benefit of the people of Toome and the whole of the north-west.

Rev William McCrea: I am delighted at the interest — albeit belated — that some Members have shown today in Toome and the Toome bypass. To the best of my knowledge some of them have never made a statement about Toome in their lives. It is always good to find that there are some takers and comers along the road, but I will return to that shortly.
Some Members told us that they are endeavouring to assist in getting the project off the ground, but they are giving misleading information. The Minister never said that he was going to put the Toome scheme into suspension, as one Member from Mid Ulster said — a Sinn Féin/IRA Member. To the best of my knowledge, the context was that if necessary funding were not forthcoming, all the schemes that were being processed at that time might not be carried out in the timescale that was mentioned. That was the tenor of the Minister’s speech.
There was talk about the fanfare of publicity in Toome a year ago. I remember that morning well. My hon Friend MrP Robinson attended as Minister, and everywhere the cameras went, MrJ Kelly followed or tried to get in front of them. One could see his neck stretching out every time a photograph was being taken of my Colleague and me. He wanted to be sure he was in it. When it comes to fanfares and cameras, the said person is far from shy; he wants to be there in the forefront, if humanly possible. There is so much hypocrisy about this issue that it is sickening for those who have been campaigning for Toome for over 20 years. However, let us push aside some of the minutiae that are being brought up.
This is and has been an important issue. It is so important for the area west of the Bann and for Mid Ulster that the Member of Parliament for Mid Ulster and an Assembly Member for Mid Ulster — the same person, representing Sinn Féin/IRA — is missing. He is not here for this important discussion. This issue is so important that it has frustrated Members and engendered anger in their bellies. However, it seems that the matter is not so important to the Member of Parliament. Of course, MP does mean "Missing Person" so far as the constituency is concerned.
There has been so much hypocrisy about the Toome bypass. It is interesting that they say that they are worried about people’s lives. There is a fly in the ointment; they were not interested in people’s lives during the past 30 years of terrorist violence, when people were murdered and maimed and the ambulances needed to get through Toome to get not to Antrim Area Hospital but to the excellent services at the Royal Victoria Hospital. We have heard an awful lot of hypocrisy; they want to grab the headlines, rather than deal with the situation.
I am glad that the hon Member for Mid Ulster (Mr Armstrong) has found out where Toome is. I must be honest — over the 28 years that I have been in public life, I had never, until now, heard him making a statement about a Toome bypass. However, it is better late than never, I suppose. It is good that he has found out that Toome and the rest of the constituency actually exist. However, it ill becomes people to chide those who are endeavouring to do their best for the area, when those people have done nothing for the area themselves.

Mr Billy Armstrong: Will the Member give way?

Rev William McCrea: I certainly will not give way.

Sir John Gorman: Mr McCrea, you have been asked to give way.

Rev William McCrea: I said that I would not give way. Mr Deputy Speaker, you know that it is the Member who decides whether he will give way — not the Chair.

Sir John Gorman: I asked the question — that is all.

Rev William McCrea: I was delighted that one of the first ministerial acts by my hon Friend the Member for East Belfast (Mr P Robinson) was to come to Toome and announce the proposals for the design of the bridge. Now, that was not regarded as sectarian, but it is regarded as sectarian to consider the wider financial aspects. Toome was not an isolated scheme; all schemes of similar magnitude were considered as part of the overall package. The people west of the Bann appreciated the fact that a DUP Minister was taking their interests into consideration and putting something in motion by unveiling the design proposals for the bridge and the bypass.
When the Chancellor announced his initiative and talked about his proposals, few elected representatives actually heard him — it is amazing how they listen to what they want to listen to, and then shut off. They welcomed the Chancellor’s statement, not realising, of course, that the Chancellor said that the scheme would happen as one of a series of proposals that would benefit from the money accrued by the sale of Belfast port. It was simply and directly connected to that sale.
At that time Minister Robinson prioritised the roads programme, and Toome was a beneficiary of that. Mr Campbell followed Mr Robinson’s policy, but — and he would be right to tell people all about this — the moneys allocated to his Department were changed. It would have been possible to make a start on all the schemes that were included in the proposal in year one. That is what the Ministers — past and present — wanted to do, but, of course, they did not have the money. Not even the Jews down in Egypt, who were receiving special help from the Almighty himself, were able to make bricks without straw.
The debate may be helpful. Although the money for year one was safe, the capital roads budget for years two and three seemed to be under question. To the best of my knowledge, we are politicians and this is a debating chamber for politicians, though that is not always evident, given that some contributions are always read, and sometimes badly read. If those speaking in this debate today are politicians of conviction — though it seems that we are not politicians if we are bringing politics into this — and if this debate means something to the parties and is not just "huff and puff", today could mark progress in this Chamber.
If the Members from Sinn Feín/IRA, the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP who have spoken are making commitments on behalf of their parties to do everything in their power to ensure that the finances for the road budget are restored, progress will have been made today. But I have a feeling that, as usual, when their arms are twisted up their backs, they will cave in and prove themselves to be jellyfish, rather than men.
However, I would be happy to be proved wrong. If that is the case, we can be assured that the Members I referred to are not seeking headlines but are trying to ensure that the Minister has the finances to do the job. My conversations with the Minister have convinced me that no one would be happier to make sure that this scheme and others in the programme were processed properly.
I ask the Minister to ensure that there is no delay and that everything necessary is being done. Have the necessary procedures been put into place and into operation to ensure that there will be no delay in the programme for the Toome bypass, if the funds become available? We have seen that the goodwill in the Chamber has grown, and I have no doubt that the issue will be easily overcome. Are the planning process, the environmental studies, the vesting programme — if that is the way forward — being processed now to ensure that there will be no undue delay in the creation of this bypass?
Unlike some who have spoken, I have campaigned with genuine conviction for the creation of a Toome bypass for over 20 years. Mr McClelland of the SDLP said that he is familiar with the congestion because he comes from the area. I appreciate that, and I understand his conviction, because he has experienced the problem himself. I too speak with conviction, for I believe that the bypass would benefit not just the west of the Province but the entire region. It would be beneficial because it would remove the west-east divide. There should be one Province with the people of Northern Ireland enjoying all its benefits.
There are two industrial sites in the area, one of which is at Creagh, on the verge of Toome. The other is on the Ballymena side of the town. This road is vital to attracting industry. It is important to ensure that people and industries do not avoid this area because of congestion, delays and pollution. Many issues hinge on this decision. That is why I know that my hon Friend will listen carefully to those whose belief in this issue is genuine and not based on political gain or belated interest. The Toome bypass is necessary to the well-being of the people of that vast area in the west and in the adjoining constituencies and council areas.
That is why I ask my hon Friend to ensure that nothing impedes progress. I hope and believe that all Members of the Assembly will unite in pressing for additional finances for the second and third years. If they do so, there will be no problem in ensuring that the Toome bypass becomes a reality, and that is what really counts.

Sir John Gorman: I call Mr David Ford, and ask him to remember that time is moving on.

Mr David Ford: An advantage of speaking at this stage in a debate is that one does not have to repeat everything everyone else has said. A disadvantage is that one directly follows the Member for Mid Ulster, who has dictated the Minister’s winding-up speech to him.
I certainly acknowledge the Minister’s quite clear problems in the realm of finance, but I do not think that they are entirely inflicted on him by others. Sometimes I wonder if they are not inflicted by the "hokey-cokey" policy of the DUP. Perhaps if one pulls Peter out to put Gregory in, one pulls out Peter’s proposals and aspirations at the same time. I trust the Minister will show this afternoon that he has not forgotten all the commitments that we thought were given earlier this year.
One project in the Department for Regional Development’s proposals that is worrying to me when compared to the Toome scheme is that to upgrade — I believe that is the euphemism — the Westlink in Belfast. I certainly acknowledge that there are problems with freight going through the city and that the Westlink can get thoroughly jammed. However, examining the possibilities, there are alternatives — particularly with public transport, but also with roads — which could reduce the demand for over £40 million worth of improvements on that stretch. There is a real fear on the part of many experts that all it will achieve is to speed the traffic jams up to three quarters of a mile through the city with a deterioration in air quality for those living in the area.
By contrast, the Toome proposals would cost under a third of the amount required for the Westlink. There is no alternative, and there would be significant environmental benefits, not only for those who travel through the village, but more particularly for those who live in and around it. Mr John Kelly referred to the problems of ambulances and to the fact that hospital services are now centralised. However, this is not just a problem for ambulances; it is a problem for freight vehicles, private cars and buses as well.
There is a bizarre situation in which the Maiden City Flyer, the most efficient way of getting between Northern Ireland’s main two cities, cannot get through Toome in the morning in time for people to catch the Enterprise to Dublin. It is hard to imagine anything more bizarre than businessmen from Derry driving to Belfast to catch a train to Dublin because of the inadequacies of public transport resulting from the congestion that is solely in Toome.
Of course, the railway might make a slight difference at some stage, but even if it removes the north-west traffic we cannot expect it to take out traffic from the mid Ulster and mid Tyrone areas, and possibly parts of west Tyrone as well. There is a major need for the bypass, for in its absence we shall see the entire area grinding to a halt. There is no incentive for people to use public transport to improve their travelling times for, because of the jams, it is even slower than private transport.
Representing South Antrim — and therefore two thirds of the length of the proposed bypass, rather than the third which others represent — it is my great fortune that I rarely travel through Toome in the rush hour. When I do, it tends to be in the opposite direction to the main traffic flow. However, what I see is quite enough to convince me of the need for a bypass soon.
Reference has been made to the previous Minister’s visit to the O’Neill Arms Hotel to launch the exhibition on the bypass proposals. I have a confession to make. I did not manage to squeeze into any of the pictures; I was not seen beside Mr J Kelly, Mr McCrea or Mr P Robinson. I was in this Building on Assembly duties while the exhibition was being launched. However, I travelled there that evening, which gave me a much better opportunity to see the exhibition, though a slimmer chance of getting on television. I had the opportunity to speak to local people, and it was quite clear that there is deep feeling in the village and its surroundings on both sides that the bypass is needed now. It is very rare that one finds people whose land is to be affected by a vesting scheme for a main road saying "Yes, this area needs it." However, I heard that said in the O’Neill Arms Hotel that night. Clearly, the feeling in the district is that priority must be given to the bypass, and we must take note of that.
Currently, we have a temporary throughpass in the village, which seems to have made a marginal improvement in travelling times. This was clearly accepted by people in Toome, and certainly by Antrim Council, as a temporary expedient until the bypass was built — and it will only be accepted as such.
Why is there such reluctance from the Ministers responsible to do something about the Toome bypass? The Minister for Regional Development travels here most days from Londonderry, and the Minister of Finance and Personnel travels here most days from Derry. Perhaps they are being so careful about their own interests that they do not want to be seen to be promoting the Toome bypass, lest anyone have any suspicions of their personal motives. We could accept and understand that if they felt that they wanted to make progress on the scheme. People would not criticise them of being solely interested in their own circumstances.
To give one hint to the Minister, perhaps he and his Colleague the Minister of Finance could set an example. Instead of coming in two cars, some day they could meet up at Lisnagelvin and travel to Stormont in one car. That would at least cut down the traffic jam through Toome slightly. I am not going to suggest that they bring the Minister of Education as well — I am not trying to be unrealistic. The Minister for Regional Development and the Minister of Finance could co-operate that far, and the people of Toome would appreciate it. I have no doubt that what they would appreciate much more is giving this scheme its proper priority within the region — doing something to put the bridge and bypass in place immediately.

Mr Alan McFarland: I sit on the Regional Development Committee, and, with family roots in Tyrone, I have used this road through Toome for most of my adult life.
This is an important development as it is a key access route to the west of the Province. However, we are now hearing that there is no money available for this, and it may have to be put back. That was not always so, and listening to Mr McCrea we hear revisionism at its best. We had a press release on 25 January, wherein Minister Robinson announced, quite clearly — and there was no question about it then — that the Toome bypass would be built. He went to the O’Neill Arms to produce an exhibition and unveil plans. He even had a very public row with Mr J Kelly to make sure it made the headlines on the news that night. He went into enormous detail about the length of the bridge and how this would be and that would be. However, the new Minister, Mr Campbell, claims that there is no money for funding. At that stage there was no doubt at all, and this was the Department for Regional Development’s press statement:
"Funding for the bypass is being provided from the 1998 Chancellor’s Initiative, which announced investment for the physical infrastructure in Northern Ireland."
There was no doubt at that stage — no doubt at all — that this was to happen.
The question is "What is the game?" You could argue that Minister Campbell has been hung out to dry and has been left to carry the rap for a complete volte-face in the Department. With friends like these, who needs enemies? Mr McCrea told how he has been after this for 20 years. I wonder who was the MP for Mid Ulster for many of those 20 years. The only reason we are able to have Minister Campbell bringing this development forward is that the Ulster Unionist Party produced the agreement. Otherwise we would still be looking for funding for all this.
Is there now an opportunity for Mr Campbell to do some lateral thinking? Perhaps there is a chance to look at the Toome bypass as a public-private partnership (PPP) — to develop it as a toll road. You could argue that it is clearly defined, it is outside the village and people will have a choice of coming through the village or taking the faster route. It would save £13 million of Mr Campbell’s budget. Has he thought about that? He tells us regularly that there is no money for roads — they are underfunded — and he is absolutely correct. There is a serious crisis in Roads Service. Does his vision of the future include looking at alternatives, now that he has this opportunity of a complete turnaround — no money when Mr Robinson said there was? Perhaps he will comment on that when he gets the opportunity.

Mr Francie Molloy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion from my Colleague Mr John Kelly, Assembly Member for Mid Ulster. I reaffirm our position that the Toome bypass should be put in place as quickly as possible. It is a long-awaited scheme, and we have heard how long people have been lobbying about it.
Unfortunately, the then MP for the area did not deliver that particular scheme, even when at the time he was propping up the Conservative Government. Even when he was maintaining his own position and theirs, and allowing them to continue to run down the services and the infrastructures, he could not extract a concession from them to make funds available for this simple bypass.
The scheme itself cannot be delayed any longer. It has been planned for a long time. People living west of the Bann have suffered decades of discrimination by the Stormont regime and the British Government. We are talking about discrimination not against Catholics, but against the people of the west — Catholics, Protestants and Dissenters. They have all lived in that area.
From early on in the Unionist regime there was an awareness that repartition might be considered at some future stage. Therefore nothing at all was developed in the west. All the infrastructures, all the industries and all the hospitals were put east of the Bann. The attitude was that the rest of the population could come to the east if it wanted to avail of those services. However, the people were not provided with the necessary infrastructure to come and get the good of those services.
If one looks at the river Bann on the map one will see that the M2 stops just beyond Antrim, the M1 at Dungannon, and the railway at Portadown. There is no infrastructure right across from east to west.

Mr James Leslie: The Member’s point is very interesting. Does he agree that the same east-west divide is highly apparent in the Republic of Ireland — so much so that it has repartitioned the country itself for purposes of positioning the west of the country better for EU grants?

Mr Francie Molloy: I agree completely. I could not have put it any better myself. We have often said that the west of Ireland has been discriminated against by the Dublin regime, by Stormont and by the British Government. In the South we now see a rebalancing. They are actually talking about repopulating the west of Ireland. We need to ensure that the same happens in the North and we will get repopulation of the Six Counties, so that we will get a fair distribution of resources, infrastructure and wealth.

Mr Barry McElduff: I want to draw the attention of the Member, and that of the Minister, to the Omagh throughpass. Just like the Toome bypass, it is deemed to be at risk and may be deferred as a result of the 15 November announcement. I find it very unusual that the Member for South Antrim — sorry, the Member for Mid Ulster — Mr McCrea, was putting the onus on all the other parties to secure funding for the Toome bypass and these other road schemes. The Minister’s self-exclusion from the Executive table has cost many communities the money for these schemes.

Mr Francie Molloy: I agree. Not only has the Minister not come to the Executive and argued for the money to be made available, but the previous Minister took advantage of the situation by making the announcement, laying down the plans and leaving it to the Executive to provide the money. He knew that he was not going to be there for the second round. He simply left Mr Campbell to clean up afterwards.
We are now in a situation where we do not have the Minister who announced it, and we do not have the funds to deliver it, because there was no plan in place to ensure that the Executive would support it. It was simply a public relations announcement by Mr Peter Robinson at that time.
The village of Toome has suffered severely. It has been destroyed by pollution, traffic congestion and noise. The quality of life has been affected. Even the plaque that Mr McClelland was looking for would be splashed all over if it were put up at the moment, given the amount of traffic that is going through the village.
We have to take all that into account if we are going to improve the situation and improve the quality of life for the villagers. One of the things that we have found down through the years is that villagers often feel that their village will be destroyed by putting a bypass around it. In this situation the village has been destroyed by the failure to put a bypass around it, and the failure to put the bridge in place. We need to address this problem. This is one of the main east/west arterial routes.
It is important that this bridge is put in place and that the infrastructure is developed. Not only is this the main east/west arterial route, but it is also the main arterial route for the DUP/LVF spokesperson from Mid Ulster, South Antrim, or wherever he is currently representing. He now travels between one constituency and the other, so it is vital that this bridge be built, for that would allow him to move between his constituencies quickly.
If we are going to develop the west — and this is one of the main issues we need to address — we have to have the necessary infrastructure. Industrialists say that they cannot get their goods out or their materials in. If TSN is to mean anything in this Assembly, and if the Executive is sincere in trying to implement it, we need to target social need by providing adequate finances and resources. I ask Members to support this. It is unfortunate that the people who caused the whole east/west problem in the past are badly represented in the Chamber. There are only three Members — [Interruption]

Sir John Gorman: I have to stop you, Mr Molloy.
Minister, are you prepared to give up a short amount of your time to your predecessor, Mr Peter Robinson? In other words, you will have nine minutes between you.

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is normal — [Interruption]

Sir John Gorman: The Member — [Interruption]

Mr Peter Robinson: I am on a point of order.
It is normal that when spurious or ill-founded comments have been made about a Member, that Member has a right to respond. Instead of coming to me, you went to the Sinn Féin/IRA representative. That is the issue. I do not wish to take up the Minister’s time, but I think that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, should have given me time to answer the points that had been made against me personally.

Sir John Gorman: You have taken up very well the time that I was prepared to give you.

Mr John Kelly: A LeasCheann Comhairle, on a point of order. Was the Member’s name on the list to speak?

Sir John Gorman: Yes.

Mr Peter Robinson: That was not the answer you wanted, was it?

Mr Gregory Campbell: The notes that I prepared before the debate have been borne out by most of the Members’ speeches, in that virtually everyone is agreed that Toome needs a bypass. It would improve journey times and reliability on the vitally important trans-European route between Belfast and the north-west, and it would also deliver environmental, community and safety benefits by substantially reducing the amount of traffic travelling through the village of Toome. I want to assure the House that my Department and I are keen to deliver a well-designed solution as soon as possible.
The proposed scheme is for a 3·5-kilometre — that is just over two miles — dual carriageway bypass to the north of Toome. The estimated cost is £13 million, and the likely contract period is 18 months. To ensure that local people were fully consulted about this scheme, my predecessor, Mr Peter Robinson, opened an exhibition in the village in January of this year. Good progress has been made since then, and the following steps have been and are being taken.
During the statutory planning process, the direction order attracted one objection, but this was resolved by negotiation. The Committee for Regional Development and I have approved the direction order, and it will become operative in February 2001. That will complete the planning procedures.
The statutory environmental procedures have been completed without objection, and a notice to that effect will appear in the press later this week. That will allow my Department to proceed to the next stage of the statutory process, which is the vesting order stage. Roads Service has made an initial visit to all the relevant landowners, and I understand that they have proved co-operative so far. It is planned to publish the notice of intention to make a vesting order next month.
My Department has further demonstrated its commitment to the scheme by advertising for project management consultants to oversee the design and construct contract. It is intended to appoint the consultants in the next 10 days, and the value of that scheme is about £400,000. I also plan a 16-week site investigation contract, to start next month, to obtain detailed ground survey information along the route of the bypass. That contract is valued at £100,000. An advertising — [Interruption]

Rev William McCrea: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for people to instigate a debate like this and then not listen to the answers that are being provided?

Sir John Gorman: That is not a point of order.

Rev William McCrea: It is a point of order.

Mr Gregory Campbell: Also, there was advertising last week for horticultural contractors to undertake a contract to harvest and propagate local seeds to provide native planting to be used in the subsequent landscaping of the new road. That is a Northern Ireland pilot of a new UK-wide initiative.
I want to pay tribute to Roads Service staff, and their consultants, for all of their work to date. If all goes well with the land acquisition, the design and construct contract could be advertised in the summer of 2001, with the successful contractor undertaking the detailed design in the autumn and starting work on the ground early in 2002.
However, despite all the progress that has been made, it is vital that my Department receives sufficient funds so that this and the other schemes in the major works preparation pool can proceed on schedule. Clearly, insufficient funds could delay the start date of some of these key schemes.
This matter seems to have escaped the notice of some Members, despite the fact that my predecessor sent them a letter on 20 July which not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, but five times indicated that these schemes would proceed subject to finance being available. It was stated five times in the one letter.
The recent Budget statement by the Minister of Finance and Personnel announced draft allocations for the year 2001-02. That was done since my hon Friend, the previous Minister for Regional Development, made the announcement about the exhibition in Toome. However, using the normal financial planning assumptions, it seems that the funding available to my Department for the years 2002-03 and 2003-04 may not be sufficient to enable construction to start on all the schemes in the preparation pool which it is anticipated will be ready to start in that period.
I felt it important to make members of the Regional Development Committee aware of the possible funding shortfall when I met them on 15 November, and I welcome the opportunity today to discuss the matter further in this Adjournment debate.
With regard to the Toome bypass, I want to make it clear that when my predecessor, Peter Robinson, opened the consultation exhibition in Toome last January the scheme was subject to the statutory procedures and the availability of funding. I want to make that crystal clear, and I hope to have to say it only once — not five times. That is the case for every major works scheme. There is no scheme that I know of that proceeds irrespective of funding — none. If people do not understand that, then I do not know what they would understand.
Similarly, when I advised the Regional Development Committee several weeks ago of a possible funding shortfall, that was not a cancellation or a postponement of any scheme. It was merely a statement of the obvious: to build roads, I need resources. I am convinced that, through our consultations with local people and with our extensive environmental studies, we have come up with a bypass scheme that is an excellent solution to a very serious problem as well as being a scheme which enjoys widespread support throughout Northern Ireland.
I have no wish to delay or defer this important project. I am aware of the benefits that it will bring. I am sure that with the goodwill and support of this House the necessary finance can be made available to my Department in the years 2002 and 2003 in order to allow it and the other vital schemes in my major works preparation pool to proceed as soon as is practically possible. I hope to receive the support of this House to get the necessary resources so that these roads can be constructed.
One or two political comments have been made about where I would, or would not, go in order to get the necessary resources. I will do all in my power to ensure that these roads are built. The one constraint that I am faced with in ensuring that I get the resources is the manifesto election pledge upon which I was elected. I will not be departing from that.
Adjourned at 5.20 pm.